The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.

The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.

Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.

Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.

$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.

Non-prompt J/$\psi$ cross section as a function of transverse momentum in pp at 5.02 TeV

Prompt J/$\psi$ cross section as a function of transverse momentum in pp at 13 TeV

Prompt J/$\psi$ cross section as a function of transverse momentum in pp at 5.02 TeV

Prompt J/$\psi$ cross section as a function of rapidity in pp at 13 TeV

Groomed jet momentum splitting fraction $z_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in pp collisions. $80<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<100 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables for a given centrality). For the remaining sources ("unfolding") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet momentum splitting fraction $z_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions. $80<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<100 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet momentum splitting fraction $z_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ $-$ ratio of Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $80<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<100 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables for a given centrality). For the remaining sources ("unfolding") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ $-$ ratio of Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet momentum splitting fraction $z_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables for a given centrality). For the remaining sources ("unfolding") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet momentum splitting fraction $z_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet momentum splitting fraction $z_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ $-$ ratio of Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables for a given centrality). For the remaining sources ("unfolding") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ $-$ ratio of Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.4, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables for a given centrality). For the remaining sources ("unfolding") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ in Pb-Pb collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.4, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Groomed jet radius (scaled) $\theta_{{\mathrm{g}}}$ $-$ ratio of Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60<p_{\mathrm{T,\;ch\;jet}}<80 \;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.4, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction.

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $20<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<40$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $60<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<80$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

Groomed jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha,g}$ for $\alpha = 3$. $80<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<100$, Soft Drop $z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.2, \beta=0$. Note: The first bin corresponds to the Soft Drop untagged fraction. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).

The average $(\Lambda + \overline\Lambda)$ polarization along beam direction as function of hyperon rapidity for 30-50% centrality in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$~TeV.

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $3<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of h-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of $K_S^0$-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

$\Delta\varphi$ projection of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation function with $9<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}< 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ and $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side with $1 \mathrm{GeV}/c<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}< p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} $

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Ratio of the per-trigger yields in different multiplicity classes to the corresponding minimum bias yield for ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of h-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of $K_S^0$-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Per-trigger yields of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h correlation functions as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side from minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the near-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for minimum bias

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 0-1% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 1-3% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 3-7% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 7-15% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 15-50% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}}$ on the away-side for 50-100% multiplicity class

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the near-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of $K_S^0$-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $3 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 4 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $4 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 5 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $5 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 6 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $6 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 7 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $7 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 9 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $9 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 11 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

Ratios of integrated per-trigger yield of ($\Lambda+\overline{\Lambda}$)-h to h-h as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{assoc}}$ on the away-side for $11 < p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{trigg}} < 15 \mathrm{GeV}/c$

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 20-30% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-40% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 40-50% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 50-60% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-5% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 5-10% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-20% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 20-30% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-40% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 40-50% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 50-60% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-5% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 5-10% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-20% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 20-30% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-40% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 40-50% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 50-60% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-5% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 5-10% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-20% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 20-30% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-40% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 40-50% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of ${\rm K}^{0}_{\rm{S}}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 50-60% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-5% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 5-10% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-20% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 20-30% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-40% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 40-50% centrality interval.

$v_2\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\Lambda$+$\overline{\Lambda}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 50-60% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-10% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-30% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-50% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-10% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-30% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of $\rm{K}^{\pm}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-50% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 0-10% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 10-30% centrality interval.

$v_3\{2, |\Delta\eta| > 2.0\}$ of p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ for the 30-50% centrality interval.

The $p_{\rm T}$ of $v_2^{\mathrm{max}}$ for $\pi^{\pm}$ as a function of centrality.

The $p_{\rm T}$ of $v_2^{\mathrm{max}}$ for p+$\rm\overline{p}$ as a function of centrality.

Pb-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. ZN centrality percentile in p-Pb collisions at 8.16 TeV

p-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. ZN centrality percentile in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV

p-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. ZN centrality percentile in p-Pb collisions at 8.16 TeV

Pb-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. average Ncoll in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV

Pb-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. average Ncoll in p-Pb collisions at 8.16 TeV

p-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. average Ncoll in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV

p-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. average Ncoll in p-Pb collisions at 8.16 TeV

ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. normalized charged-particle multiplicity in p-p collisions at 13 TeV

p-remnant side ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. normalized charged-particle multiplicity in p-Pb collisions at 8.16 TeV

ZP signal normalized to MB value vs. normalized charged-particle multiplicity in p-p collisions at 13 TeV

p-remnant side ZP signal normalized to MB value vs. average charged-particle multiplicity in p-Pb collisions at 8.16 TeV

ZN signal normalized to MB value vs. leading transverse momentum in |eta|<0.8 in p-p collisions at 13 TeV

ZP signal normalized to MB value vs. leading transverse momentum in |eta|<0.8 in p-p collisions at 13 TeV