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.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. The uncertainties of simulated data are only the statistical unvertainty in the simulation predictions.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ after the preselection from 2017 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The simulated distribution of two signal points are represented by colored lines, while not being stacked on the background distributions: $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (500, 490) and (500, 420) GeV. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. The uncertainties of simulated data are only the statistical unvertainty in the simulation predictions.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ after the preselection from 2018 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The simulated distribution of two signal points are represented by colored lines, while not being stacked on the background distributions: $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (500, 490) and (500, 420) GeV. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. The uncertainties of simulated data are only the statistical unvertainty in the simulation predictions.

Distribution of $N_{Jet}$ after the preselection from 2017 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The simulated distribution of two signal points are represented by colored lines, while not being stacked on the background distributions: $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (500, 490) and (500, 420) GeV. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. The uncertainties of simulated data are only the statistical unvertainty in the simulation predictions.

Distribution of $N_{Jet}$ after the preselection from 2018 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The simulated distribution of two signal points are represented by colored lines, while not being stacked on the background distributions: $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (500, 490) and (500, 420) GeV. The last bin includes the overflow events.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. The uncertainties of simulated data are only the statistical unvertainty in the simulation predictions.

Simulated distribution of $p_{T}(l)$ after the preselection. The total background distribution and the signal distributions are all normalized to unit area. The signal distributions are given for a top squark mass of 300 GeV and $\Delta {m}=10$, 30,50, and 80 GeV.

Simulated distribution of $p_{T}(l)$ after the preselection. The total background distribution and the signal distributions are all normalized to unit area. The signal distributions are shown for four different $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ values, all corresponding to the same $\Delta {m} = 30$ GeV.

Simulated distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ after the preselection. The total background distribution and the signal distributions are all normalized to unit area. The signal distributions are given for a top squark mass of 300 GeV and $\Delta {m}=10$, 30,50, and 80 GeV.

Simulated distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ after the preselection. The total background distribution and the signal distributions are all normalized to unit area. The signal distributions are shown for four different $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ values, all corresponding to the same $\Delta {m} = 30$ GeV.

Simulated distribution of $N_{Jet}$ after the preselection. The total background distribution and the signal distributions are all normalized to unit area. The signal distributions are given for a top squark mass of 300 GeV and $\Delta {m}=10$, 30,50, and 80 GeV.

Simulated distribution of $N_{Jet}$ after the preselection. The total background distribution and the signal distributions are all normalized to unit area. The signal distributions are shown for four different $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ values, all corresponding to the same $\Delta {m} = 30$ GeV.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 10$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 20$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 30$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 40$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 50$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 60$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 70$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 80$ GeV for 2017 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 10$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 20$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 30$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 40$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 50$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 60$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 70$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

BDT output distributions from data (black points) and simulation (colored lines) after the preselection for $\Delta {m} = 80$ GeV for 2018 data. The last bin corresponds to the SR. A representative $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ signal point is also presented, while not added to the SM background.

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of $p_{T}(l)$ for $\Delta {m} = 10$ in the VR where $200 < p_{T}^{miss} < 280$ GeV from 2017 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (475, 465).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of $p_{T}(l)$ for $\Delta {m} = 10$ in the VR where $200 < p_{T}^{miss} < 280$ GeV from 2018 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (475, 465).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of BDT for $\Delta {m} = 10$ in the VR where $200 < p_{T}^{miss} < 280$ GeV from 2017 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (475, 465).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of BDT for $\Delta {m} = 10$ in the VR where $200 < p_{T}^{miss} < 280$ GeV from 2018 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (475, 465).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ for $\Delta {m} = 60$ in the VR where $p_{T}(l) > 30$ GeV from 2017 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (576, 516).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ for $\Delta {m} = 60$ in the VR where $p_{T}(l) > 30$ GeV from 2018 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (576, 516).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of BDT for $\Delta {m} = 60$ in the VR where $p_{T}(l) > 30$ GeV from 2017 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (576, 516).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Distribution of BDT for $\Delta {m} = 60$ in the VR where $p_{T}(l) > 30$ GeV from 2018 data (black points) and simulation (colored lines). The predicted signal distribution is shown for $(m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1}),m(\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}))$ = (576, 516).

The ratio of data to the sum of the SM backgrounds. Only the statistical uncertainty in the data and the simulated background are represented.

Data yield and prediction of the total background and its composition in the eight SRs as defined in for the 2017 analysis. The predictions of W + jets, ttbar, and nonprompt lepton processes are based on data, while those of rare backgrounds are based on simulation. The predictions and their associated uncertainties are pre-fit. The uncertainties are the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties for background processes predicted from data, and the uncertainties on the cross section for the backgrounds predicted from simulation. The yields for two signal points, with $\Delta {m} = 10$ GeV and $\Delta {m} = 80$ GeV, are also shown. The bins corresponding to different $\Delta {m}$ trainings are not statistically independent.

The ratio of the number of observed events over the predicted total background per SR.

Data yield and prediction of the total background and its composition in the eight SRs as defined in for the 2018 analysis. The predictions of W + jets, ttbar, and nonprompt lepton processes are based on data, while those of rare backgrounds are based on simulation. The predictions and their associated uncertainties are pre-fit. The uncertainties are the quadratic sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties for background processes predicted from data, and the uncertainties on the cross section for the backgrounds predicted from simulation. The yields for two signal points, with $\Delta {m} = 10$ GeV and $\Delta {m} = 80$ GeV, are also shown. The bins corresponding to different $\Delta {m}$ trainings are not statistically independent.

The ratio of the number of observed events over the predicted total background per SR.

Exclusion limit at 95% CL for the four-body decay of the top squark as a function of $m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1})$ and $\Delta {m}$, for the combined data of the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The lines represent the observed limits. These limits are derived using the expected top squark pair production cross section. The green line represents the central values, and the other lines the variations due to the theoretical or experimental uncertainties.

Exclusion limit at 95% CL for the four-body decay of the top squark as a function of $m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1})$ and $\Delta {m}$, for the combined data of the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. The lines represent the expected limits. These limits are derived using the expected top squark pair production cross section. The green line represents the central values, and the other lines the variations due to the theoretical or experimental uncertainties.

Exclusion limit at 95% CL for the four-body decay of the top squark as a function of $m(\mathrm{\widetilde{t}}_{1})$ and $\Delta {m}$, for the combined data of the years 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Transverse mass $m_T$ spectrum at midrapidity of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c. $m_0$ is the PDG mass of the $\phi$ meson.

Transverse mass $m_T$ spectrum at midrapidity of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c. $m_0$ is the PDG mass of the $\phi$ meson.

Dependence of the slope parameter $T$ of the transverse momentum spectrum on rapidity $y$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c.

Dependence of the slope parameter $T$ of the transverse momentum spectrum on rapidity $y$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c.

Dependence of the width $\sigma_y$ of the rapidity distributions on $p_T$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c.

Dependence of the width $\sigma_y$ of the rapidity distributions on $p_T$, of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c.

Rapidity spectrum of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 158 GeV/c.

Rapidity spectrum of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 80 GeV/c.

Rapidity spectrum of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at beam momentum of 40 GeV/c.

Energy dependence of ratios of total yields of $\phi$ mesons to mean total yields of pions produced in in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Energy dependence of double ratios of total yields of $\phi$ mesons to mean total yields of pions in central Pb+Pb collisions over minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Energy dependence of total yields of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Energy dependence of midrapidity yields of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies.

Widths of rapidity distributions of $\phi$ mesons produced in minimum bias p+p collisions at CERN SPS energies, as a function of beam rapidity.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

Phi Meson Spectra.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

ks(pTs) = N(Omega+Anti-Omega)_(pT=3pTs)/2N(phi)_(pT=2pTs) N is the invariant yield.

Correlated dihadron yield, per radian per unit of pseudorapidity, as a function of $\Delta\phi$ for -4.5 < $\Delta\eta$ < -2 in d+Au collisions, for high ZDC-Au activity data. Both the trigger and associated particles have 1 < $p_T$ < 3 GeV/c.

Correlated dihadron yield, per radian per unit of pseudorapidity, as a function of $\Delta\phi$ for 2 < $\Delta\eta$ < 4.5 in d+Au collisions, for low ZDC-Au activity data. Both the trigger and associated particles have 1 < $p_T$ < 3 GeV/c.

Correlated dihadron yield, per radian per unit of pseudorapidity, as a function of $\Delta\phi$ for 2 < $\Delta\eta$ < 4.5 in d+Au collisions, for high ZDC-Au activity data. Both the trigger and associated particles have 1 < $p_T$ < 3 GeV/c.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the near-side (|$\Delta\phi$| < $\pi/3$) correlated yield. Positive(negative) $\eta$ corresponds to d(Au)-going direction. Only high ZDC-Au activity data are shown.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the away-side (|$\Delta\phi - \pi$| < $\pi/3$) correlated yield. Positive(negative) $\eta$ corresponds to d(Au)-going direction. Only high ZDC-Au activity data are shown.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the ratio of the near- to away-side correlated yields in d+Au collisions. Positive(negative) $\eta$ corresponds to d(Au)-going direction. Only high ZDC-Au activity data are shown.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the second harmonic Fourier coefficient, V2, in low ZDC-Au activity d+Au collisions.

The $\Delta\eta$ dependence of the second harmonic Fourier coefficient, V2, in high ZDC-Au activity d+Au collisions.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by FTPC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-Au. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-d. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V1 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V1. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by FTPC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-Au. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-d. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V2 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be 10% on V2. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selections is by FTPC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-Au. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from FTPC-d. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

Fourier coefficient V3 versus the measured mid-rapidity charged particle $dN_{ch}/d\eta$. Event activity selection is by ZDC-Au. Trigger particles are from TPC, and associated particles from TPC. Systematic uncertainties are estimated to be smaller than statistical errors for V3. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors.

The acceptance-corrected excess dielectron mass spectra, normalized to the charged particle multiplicity at mid-rapidity dNch/dy, in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV. The dNch/dy values in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV are from Ref. [38]. The normalization uncertainty from the STAR measured dN/dy is about 10%, which is not shown in the table.

The acceptance-corrected excess dielectron mass spectra, normalized to the charged particle multiplicity at mid-rapidity dNch/dy, in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dNch/dy values in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV are from Ref. [39]. The normalization uncertainty from the STAR measured dN/dy is about 10%, which is not shown in the table.

Integrated yields of the normalized dilepton excesses for 0.4 < $M^{ll}$ < 0.75 GeV/c$^2$ as a function of dNch/dy. From top to bottom: 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, then 0-10%, 10-40%, 40-80% and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV, for centrality 30-50%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 10-30%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 30-50%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 5 GeV, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 10-30%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 30-50%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Charged jet spectra using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 0.15 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 0-10%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet spectra with leading track selection of pT > 10 GeV to pT > 5 GeV using two cone radius parameters R = 0.2 and 0.3, for centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 0-10% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 10-30% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 30-50% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 0-10% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 10-30% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 30-50% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 0-10% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 10-30% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, for charged jets with either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. Central collisions are defined to have centrality 30-50% and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, as a function of the average number of participants in the collision (<Npart>), for charged jets with pT = 60-70 GeV and either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 0.15 GeV. The correspondence between <Npart> and the centrality classes is given in Table 1 of the paper, and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, as a function of the average number of participants in the collision (<Npart>), for charged jets with pT = 60-70 GeV and either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV. The correspondence between <Npart> and the centrality classes is given in Table 1 of the paper, and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Nuclear modification factor, constructed as the ratio of jet pT spectra in central and peripheral collisions normalized by the nuclear overlap functions, as a function of the average number of participants in the collision (<Npart>), for charged jets with pT = 60-70 GeV and either R = 0.2 or R = 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 10 GeV. The correspondence between <Npart> and the centrality classes is given in Table 1 of the paper, and peripheral collisions are defined to have centrality 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Ratio of charged jet pT-spectra with radius parameter R = 0.2 and 0.3 and a leading charged particle with pT > 5 GeV, for two centrality classes 0-10% and 50-80%. The two systematic uncertainties correspond to the shape uncertainty and the correlated uncertainty.

Invariant cross section of electrons from charm decay versus PT These values has been obtained using g3data software which to extract the data from the plot and should therefore be used with caution. The values in the last column indicate the level of uncertainty intoduced by g3data.

Invariant cross section of electrons from bottom decay versus PT These values has been obtained using g3data software which to extract the data from the plot and should therefore be used with caution. The values in the last column indicate the level of uncertainty intoduced by g3data.

Total bottom cross section To obtain the total bottom cross section, the differential charm cross section has been extrapolated to the whole rapidity range, using a HVQMNR rapidity distribution with aCTEQ5M PDF.