Fully corrected assorted $\pi^{0}$-hadron conditional pair distributions for $d$+Au collisions centrality 0-88% and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^0$s are within 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$ and are correlated with hadrons with $p_{T,assoc}$ of 1.5-2 GeV/$c$, 2-3GeV/$c$, 3-4 GeV/$c$, and 4-5 GeV/$c$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron azimuthal correlations from minimumbias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near-side width, far-side width as a function of $p_{T,assoc}$ for a charged pion and neutral pion triggers from the $p_{T,trig}$ range of 5-10 GeV/$c$ in minimum bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged hadron triggers (4−6 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for charged pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side conditional yields as a function of $p_{T, assoc}$ for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of $N_{coll}$ for charged hadron triggers (2.5−4 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (1–2.5 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths and conditional yields as a function of centrality for neutral pion triggers (5−10 GeV/$c$) and associated charged hadrons (2–3 GeV/$c$) from $d$+Au collisions.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

The extracted $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions from all four dihadron correlations. The trigger $p_T$ ranges are 3 - 5 GeV/$c$, 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ and 5 - 10 GeV/$c$ for $h^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$, $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ assorted-$p_T$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of associated particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations where the trigger particles have a $p_T$ between 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

$<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions as function of trigger particle $p_T$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Near-side and far-side $p_{out}$ distributions for minimum bias $d$+Au collisions obtained from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation. The trigger is 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$, the associated particle is 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5.0 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlations for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions. The trigger pions are 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 6 GeV/$c$.

Conditional yield as a function of $x_E$ for near-side and far-side correlation for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for several different trigger $p_T$s for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation for minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $\sqrt{<j^2_T>}$ values between $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ for the $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations. The trigger pion range is 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

Quadrature difference between minimum-bias $d$+Au and $p$+$p$ $<sin^2(\phi_{jj})>$ values.

The comparison of the $p_{out}$ distribution at the near-side and far-side between central $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. Results are obtained for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations with the associated hadron range 0.5 < $p_{T,assoc}$ < 5 GeV/$c$ and trigger pion range of 5 < $p_{T,trig}$ < 10 GeV/$c$.

The comparison of the $x_E$ distribution from $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlation at the near-side and far-side between minimum bias $d$+Au collisions and $p$+$p$ collisions. The trigger $\pi^{\pm}$ are from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

Far-side conditional yield as a function of $p_{T,trig}$ for different ranges of $x_E$ from $p$+$p$ collisions, triggers are $\pi^{\pm}$ from 5 - 10 GeV/$c$.

The fitted fractional change in $dN/d_{x_E}$ per unit $p_{T,trig}$ of the far-side conditional yield for different ranges of $x_E$.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependent near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations and $\pi^0$ - $h^{\pm}$ correlations.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Centrality dependence to the ratio of near and far $CY(p_T)$ for $d$+Au to $p$+$p$.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for charged pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Near- and far-side widths as a function of $p_{T, trig}$ for neutral pion triggers and associated charged hadrons (2–4.5 Gev/$c$) from minimum-bias $d$+Au collisions.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed candidates for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) as a function of the reduced mediator candidate mass.

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$200.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$400.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.001cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.003cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.005cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.007cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.01cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.025cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.05cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.1cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.25cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$0.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$1.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$2.5cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$5.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$10.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$25.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$50.0cm

Expected and observed limits on $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$) for a lifetime of $c\tau=$100.0cm

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^+\to K^+S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to e^+e^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \mu^+\mu^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to \pi^+\pi^-$)

Efficiencies for $\mathcal{B}($$B^0\to K^{*0}(\to K^+\pi^-)S$$) \times$ $\mathcal{B}($$S\to K^+K^-$)

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Centrality dependence of (a) $v_2${2} and (b) $v_2${4}. (a) The red points indicate no pseudorapidity gap whereas the magenta points indicate a pseudorapidity gap of |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0. (b) The black points indicate $v_2${4} with no pseudorapidity gap, the blue points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 but where some short-range pairs are allowed, and the red points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 where no short-range pairs are allowed.

Centrality dependence of (a) $v_2${2} and (b) $v_2${4}. (a) The red points indicate no pseudorapidity gap whereas the magenta points indicate a pseudorapidity gap of |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0. (b) The black points indicate $v_2${4} with no pseudorapidity gap, the blue points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 but where some short-range pairs are allowed, and the red points indicate a two-subevent method with |$\Delta\eta$| > 2.0 where no short-range pairs are allowed.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Multi-particle $v_2$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The magenta open diamonds indicate the $v_2${SP }, the blue open squares indicate $v_2${4}, the black open circles indicate $v_2${6}, and the green filled diamonds indicate $v_2${8}.

Cumulant method estimate of $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2} \rangle$ as a function of centrality in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are shown as black open squares. The same calculation as done in data is done in ampt, shown as a solid green line. Calculations of $\sigma_{\epsilon_{2}}$ /$ \langle\epsilon_{2}\rangle$ performed in the Monte Carlo Glauber model are shown as blue lines. The solid blue line is the Monte Carlo Glauber calculation done using the same estimate as the data, the dashed blue line is the direct calculation of the moments of the MC Glauber $\epsilon_{2}$ distribution.

Centrality dependence of $v_3${2, |$\Delta\eta$| > 2} in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, shown as magenta diamonds. The systematic uncertainty is indicated as a shaded magenta band. Also shown as black squares are $\sqrt{\langle v^{2}_{3}\rangle}$ as determined from the folding analysis, which is shown in the next section.

Centrality dependence of $v_3${2, |$\Delta\eta$| > 2} in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, shown as magenta diamonds. The systematic uncertainty is indicated as a shaded magenta band. Also shown as black squares are $\sqrt{\langle v^{2}_{3}\rangle}$ as determined from the folding analysis, which is shown in the next section.

Centrality dependence of $c_3${4} for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. (a) Calculations using both arms: $c_3${4} (black circles), $c_3${4}$_{ab|ab}$ (blue diamonds), $c_3${4}$_{aa|bb}$ (red squares), and comparison to STAR [36] (black stars). (b) Comparison of $c_3${4} determined using both arms (open symbols) and a single arm (closed symbols). Note that the open black circles are the same in (a) and (b).

Centrality dependence of $c_3${4} for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. (a) Calculations using both arms: $c_3${4} (black circles), $c_3${4}$_{ab|ab}$ (blue diamonds), $c_3${4}$_{aa|bb}$ (red squares), and comparison to STAR [36] (black stars). (b) Comparison of $c_3${4} determined using both arms (open symbols) and a single arm (closed symbols). Note that the open black circles are the same in (a) and (b).

Centrality dependence of $c_3${4} for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. (a) Calculations using both arms: $c_3${4} (black circles), $c_3${4}$_{ab|ab}$ (blue diamonds), $c_3${4}$_{aa|bb}$ (red squares), and comparison to STAR [36] (black stars). (b) Comparison of $c_3${4} determined using both arms (open symbols) and a single arm (closed symbols). Note that the open black circles are the same in (a) and (b).

Folding results for (a) $v_2$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. In the case of $\langle v_{2}\rangle$, the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% confidence level are too small to be seen, and the uncertainties at the 95.45% confidence level are visible but noticeably smaller than the marker size. Shown as blue squares are the same quantities as determined using the cumulant based calculation—these points are slightly offset in the x-coordinate to improve visibility.

Folding results for (a) $v_2$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. In the case of $\langle v_{2}\rangle$, the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% confidence level are too small to be seen, and the uncertainties at the 95.45% confidence level are visible but noticeably smaller than the marker size. Shown as blue squares are the same quantities as determined using the cumulant based calculation—these points are slightly offset in the x-coordinate to improve visibility.

Folding results for (a) $v_2$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{2}}$ / $\langle v_{2}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. In the case of $\langle v_{2}\rangle$, the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% confidence level are too small to be seen, and the uncertainties at the 95.45% confidence level are visible but noticeably smaller than the marker size. Shown as blue squares are the same quantities as determined using the cumulant based calculation—these points are slightly offset in the x-coordinate to improve visibility.

Folding results for (a) $\langle v_{3}\rangle$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. The $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$ values are all ≈ 0.52, the apparent limiting value of this quantity for the Bessel-Gaussian distribution.

Folding results for (a) $\langle v_{3}\rangle$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. The $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$ values are all ≈ 0.52, the apparent limiting value of this quantity for the Bessel-Gaussian distribution.

Folding results for (a) $\langle v_{3}\rangle$, (b) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ , and (c) $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$. The black lines above and below the points indicate the systematic uncertainties. The red (green) boxes indicate the statistical uncertainties at the 68.27% (95.45%) confidence level. The $\sigma_{v_{3}}$ /$\langle v_{3}\rangle$ values are all ≈ 0.52, the apparent limiting value of this quantity for the Bessel-Gaussian distribution.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

$v_2$ for inclusive charged hadrons in Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV compared with 200 GeV.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Au+Au reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

Comparison of integrated $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 and 200 GeV. Cu+Cu reaction.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

The comparison of integrated $v_2$ as a function of centrality.

The comparison of the normalized $v_2$/$\epsilon$ vs. centrality.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

Comparison of $v_2$ ($p_T$) at 200 GeV for two example systems with different collision size.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 62.4 and 200 GeV for centralities given.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of $v_2$ between $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 200 GeV for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from central Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

Comparison of the $v_2$ of particles, antiparticles, for a minimum bias sample at 200 GeV and central 62.4 GeV Au+Au collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. $p_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ emitted from Au+Au at 62.4 and 200 GeV and Cu+Cu at 200 GeV collisions.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

The ratio $v_2$/$n_q$ vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for the indicated hadrons emitted from central Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV.

$v_2$ vs. $p_T$ and $v_2$/($\epsilon * N^{1/3}_{part} * n_q$) vs. ${KE}_T$/$n_q$ for $\pi$/$K$/$p$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV. The values of $v_2$ and $p_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 14, and the values of $v_2$, $n_q$, and $KE_T$ in Au+Au at 200 GeV, in Au+Au at 62.4 GeV, and in Cu+Cu at 200 GeV are the same for as figure 18.

The minimum $\chi^2$ and the parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ for each of the five centrality selections. The best fit parameters are determined by averaging all parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ contour. The errors correspond to the standard deviation of the parameter pairs within the 1$\sigma$ $\chi^2$ contour.

Fit parameters for each particle species using Equations $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C \cdot$ ($N_{part}$)$^{\alpha_{part}}$ and $\frac{dN}{dy}$ = $C^{\prime} \cdot$ ($N_{coll}$)$^{\alpha_{coll}}$.

Values of the parameters $n_{pp}$ and $x$ from fitting Equation $R \equiv \frac{dN/dy}{N_{part}}$ = (1-$x$) $\cdot n_{pp} \frac{1}{2}$ + $x \cdot n_{pp} \frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ = $n_{pp}$ [$\frac{1}{2}$ + $x$($\frac{N_{coll}}{N_{part}}$ - $\frac{1}{2})$]to the observed $dN$/$dy$ per $N_{part}$.

Invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Invariant yields for (anti)$p$ measured in minimum-bias events at midrapidity and normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality and $p_T$ bin measured at midrapidity, normalized to one rapidity unit.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $\pi^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for $K^{\pm}$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Minimum-bias invariant yields for (anti)$p$ in equal $p_T$ bins.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Pion invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

Kaon invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

(Anti)proton invariant yields in each event centrality normalized to one rapidity unit at midrapidity.

The integrated mean $p_T$ for pions, kaons, and (anti)protons produced in the five different classes of event centrality.

The expansion parameters $T_{fo}$ and $\beta^{max}_T$ as a function of the number of participants.

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. All centralities.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality A (Central).</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality B.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality C.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected N+Au collisions. Centrality D (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality A (Peripheral).</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality B.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality C.</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ as a function of $p_T$. Centrality D (Central).</p>

<p>$R_{dAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>$R_{NAu}$ values averaged in three momentum ranges as functions of $\nu−1$. Horizontal bars show the uncertainty in the value of $\nu$ for each centrality class.</p>

<p>Charged hadron spectra for centrality selected d+Au collisions.</p>

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2 (p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 0%-30% centrality.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 0%-30% centrality.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charge-combined identified hadrons $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $p$, and $\bar{p}$ measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 0%-30% centrality.

The first-order Fourier coefficients $v_1(p_T)$ for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ identified hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 10%-50% centrality.

The first-order Fourier coefficients $v_1(p_T)$ for charge-combined $\pi^{\pm}$, $K^{\pm}$, $ p$, and $\bar{p}$ identified hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV for 10%-50% centrality.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Cu collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/\epsilon_2$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Cu collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2(p_T)/(\epsilon_2 N^{1/3}_{part})$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)/\epsilon_3$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)/\epsilon_3$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)/\epsilon_3$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $\frac{v_3}{($_3 N_{part}^{1/3})}$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $\frac{v_3}{(e_3 N_{part}^{1/3})}$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Au + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Scaled third-order Fourier coefficients $\frac{v_3}{(e_3 N_{part}^{1/3})}$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The second-order Fourier coefficients $v_2$($p_T$ ) for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in comparison with hydrodynamics calculations for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The third-order Fourier coefficients $v_3(p_T)$ for charged hadrons measured at midrapidity in Cu + Au collisions at $\sqrt{S_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV in comparison with hydrodynamics calculations for the centrality classes marked in each panel.

The ratio of $\psi(2S)$ to $J/\psi(1S)$ cross sections, as measured in the dimuon decay channel in pp collisions at 200 GeV over the rapidity interval $1.2<|y|<2.2$, as a function of transverse momentum $p_{T}$.

The double ratios $[\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{\psi(1S)}]_{pA}/[\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{\psi(1S)}]_{pp}$. The global systematic uncertainty is $\pm 14\%$.

The charged-particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ determined from AMPT simulations and the nuclear overlap $S_T$ from Glauber simulations for the data shown in Fig. 5. Here we assume $dN/d\eta$ = $\frac{3}{2}dN_{ch}/d\eta$.

The charged-particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ determined from AMPT simulations and the nuclear overlap $S_T$ from Glauber simulations for the data shown in Fig. 5. Here we assume $dN/d\eta$ = $\frac{3}{2}dN_{ch}/d\eta$.

The charged-particle multiplicity $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ determined from AMPT simulations and the nuclear overlap $S_T$ from Glauber simulations for the data shown in Fig. 5. Here we assume $dN/d\eta$ = $\frac{3}{2}dN_{ch}/d\eta$.

Data table for $\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{\psi(1S)}$ ratios, measured in the dimuon decay channel. Here "fwd" refers to the forward rapidity interval $1.2<y<2.2$, "bwd" refers to the backward rapidity interval $-2.2<y<-1.2$, and "comb" refers to the rapidity interval $1.2<|y|<2.2$.

Efficiency corrected cumulants of net-charge distributions as a function of $\langle N_{part} \rangle$ from Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $\mu / \sigma^2$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $S \sigma$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $\kappa \sigma^2$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

$\langle N_{part} \rangle$ dependence of efficiency corrected $S \sigma^3 / \mu$ of net-charge distributions for Au+Au collisions at different collision energies.

The energy dependence of efficiency corrected $\mu / \sigma^2$, $S \sigma$, $\kappa \sigma^2$, and $S \sigma^3 / \mu$ of netcharge distributions for central (0%–5%) Au+Au collisions.

The energy dependence of the chemical freeze-out parameter $\mu_B$.

Away-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for the entire away-side $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /2$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Away-side $I_{AA}$ for a narrow “head” $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /6$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in $p+p$ collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental near-side jet widths from a Gaussian fit by $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta in Au+Au collisions.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

Supplemental away-side $I_{AA}$ for $|\Delta \phi - \pi| < \pi /3$ selection vs. $h^{\pm}$ partner momentum for various $\pi^0$ trigger momenta. A point-to-point uncorrelated 6% normalization uncertainty (mainly due to efficiency corrections) applies to all measurements.

$p+p$ yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

Au+Au yield vs $p_T^a$ supplemental tables.

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

absolutely normalized dijet yields scaled by 1/<TAA> in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijets from pp collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

self normalized dijet distributions in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 0-10% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 10-20% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 20-40% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 40-60% central PbPb collisions

leading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

subleading jet RAA^pair in 60-80% central PbPb collisions

ratio of subleading jet RAA^pair to leading jet RAA^pair in PbPb collisions

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

$d$+Au vs centrality vs $y$. (All uncertainties are absolute. The sys. A uncertainty includes both the statistical uncertainty and the point-to-point uncorrelated systematic, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{dAu}$ value. The sysA uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{dAu}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{dAu}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Forward-rapidity $J/\psi$ —> $\mu^+\mu^-$ $d$+Au Nuclear Dependence at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (sys. A, B systematics are relative, i.e. they multiply the $R_{CP}$ value. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Mid rapidity $d$+Au —> $e^+e^-$ $J/\psi$ $R_{CP}$ at $\sqrt{s}$=200 GeV. (Sys. A, B systematics are absolute, i.e. they add/subtract directly from $R_{CP}$. The sys. A uncertainty includes statistical uncertainties as well as point-to-point uncorrelated systematics, sys. B represents uncertainties that are correlated from point to point, and sys. C represents uncertainties in the overall normalization.)

Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].

The reconstruction efficiency for caloDPJs produced by the decay of &gamma;_d into e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as a function of their transverse momentum in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2&mu;^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^ggF, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and WH selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^WH, assuming an FRVZ signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2&mu;^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio (B) for the decay H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125&nbsp;GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown for the SR_2c^ggF, assuming a HAHM signal model. The hatched band denotes the region in which the branching ratio of H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d is larger than unity.

The CalRatio 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The CalRatio 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

The CalRatio 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The CalRatio 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in e⁺e^- or qq&#772;. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is between 2&nbsp;m and 4&nbsp;m.

The narrow-scan 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The narrow-scan 2015--2016 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is below 6&nbsp;m.

The narrow-scan 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse decay length L_xy.

The narrow-scan 2017--2018 trigger efficiency for the decay of &gamma;_d in &mu;⁺&mu;^-. The trigger efficiency is shown for &gamma;_d with 0&lt;|&eta;|&lt;1.1 as function of the transverse momentum, in events where the &gamma;_d L_xy is below 6&nbsp;m.

Efficiency of the cosmic-ray tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse decay length. The efficiency is calculated accepting the &mu;DPJs for which the cosmic-ray tagger score is &gt; 0.2 for each associated MS-only track.

Efficiency of the cosmic-ray tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse momentum. The efficiency is calculated accepting the &mu;DPJs for which the cosmic-ray tagger score is &gt; 0.2 for each associated MS-only track.

Efficiency of the QCD tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse decay length. The efficiency is calculated accepting the caloDPJs for which the QCD tagger score is &gt; 0.5.

Efficiency of the QCD tagger as function of the &gamma;_d transverse momentum. The efficiency is calculated accepting the caloDPJs for which the QCD tagger score is &gt; 0.5.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2&mu;^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c+&mu;^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2c^ggF.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_2c^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the SR_c+&mu;^WH.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the HAHM H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson for the ggF channel.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_c+&mu;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

The extrapolated acceptance times efficiencies for SR_2c;^ggF, as a function of the &gamma;_d mean proper lifetime c&tau; for the FRVZ pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X process and a SM Higgs boson. The coloured bands represent the MC statistical uncertainties.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_2&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the branching ratio (B), obtained from the SR_2c^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a 125 GeV Higgs boson. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_2&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_c+&mu;^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section, obtained from the SR_2c^ggF, for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;2&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the 2&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the c+&mu; search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for the process pp &rarr; H&rarr;&nbsp;4&gamma;_d+X and ggF selection, for different &gamma;_d masses and a Higgs-like scalar with a mass of 800&nbsp;GeV. The limits are shown for the 2c search channel, assuming an FRVZ signal model.

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).

Best fit of the cross section.

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ N_{jets}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ N_{jets}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{jj}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{jj}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ H_{T}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ H_{T}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \phi_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \phi_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Measured differential cross section as a function of observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$. Error on the measured cross-section include all the systematic uncertainties. SM predictions are produced with the event generators at particle level: Sherpa 2.2.4, Sherpa 2.2.11, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, and MiNNLO$_{PS}$. Fixed order calculations results use MATRIX NNLO. Error represent statistical uncertainty and theoretical uncertainty (PDF and Scale variations).

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$ (Fig. 8 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{\gamma} / \sqrt{H_{T}}$ (Fig. 8 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ H_{T}$ (Fig. 8 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ H_{T}$ (Fig. 8 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$ (Fig. 8 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta \phi (Jet,\gamma)$ (Fig. 8 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$ (Fig. 5 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \Delta R (l,l)$ (Fig. 5 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} - p_{T}^{\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 11 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{jj}$ (Fig. 7 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{jj}$ (Fig. 7 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 7 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ m_{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 7 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ N_{jets}$ (Fig. 6 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ N_{jets}$ (Fig. 6 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$ (Fig. 6 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}$ (Fig. 6 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{Jet2}/p_{T}^{Jet1}$ (Fig. 6 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll}$ (Fig. 5 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll}$ (Fig. 5 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 8 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j}$ (Fig. 8 (d))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 50 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 50 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } 50 GeV < p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } 50 GeV < p_{T}^{ll\gamma} < 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} > 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma j} \textrm{ in bin } p_{T}^{ll\gamma} > 75 GeV$ (Fig. 12 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 125 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 125 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 200 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } 200 GeV < m_{ll\gamma} < 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } m_{ll\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll\gamma} / m_{ll\gamma} \textrm{ in bin } m_{ll\gamma} > 300 GeV$ (Fig. 10 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ p_{T}^{ll} + p_{T}^{\gamma}$ (Fig. 5 (c))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \cos \theta_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (b))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \phi_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (a))

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section for the observable $ \phi_{CS}$ (Fig. 9 (a))

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates over the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Measured partial decay rates $\Delta\Gamma$ (in units of $10^{-15}$ GeV) using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Average of normalized decay rates that are determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the partial decay rates determined with the matrix inversion unfolding method for the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.