Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{gghh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{gghh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{tthh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood exptected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{tthh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

The observed (filled circles) and expected (hollow circles) 95% CL upper limits on the $HH$ ggF production cross-section in the Standard Model and for seven HEFT benchmark points. The teal and yellow colored bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations on the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties. The predicted cross-sections of each of the models under consideration are shown by the red crosses. The contribution from VBF production to the total $HH$ production cross-section is neglected.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ versus $c_{H}$ SMEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ versus $c_{H}$ SMEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category. When varying $\kappa_{\lambda}$, the other coupling modifiers affecting the VBF $HH$ production mode are set to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category. When varying $\kappa_{2V}$, the other coupling modifiers affecting the VBF $HH$ production mode are set to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

Expected yields of the signal $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ after applying the analysis preselection and in each analysis category after the final selection. The $HH$ yield is obtained considering both the $ggF$ and $VBF$ contributions. The other coupling modifiers affecting $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 1 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 2 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 3 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 4 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 1 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 2 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 3 region.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Summary of the expected (blue) and observed (orange) one-dimensional constraints at 68% (solid error bars) and 95% (dashed error bars) CL on the coefficients of selected HEFT (top) and SMEFT (bottom) operators describing Higgs boson interactions affecting $HH$ production through gluon--gluon fusion. The results are obtained from one dimensional scans of the profile log-likelihood assuming that all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The contribution from VBF $HH$ production is neglected.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Correlation matrix for all nuisance parameters and parameters of interest of the Likelihood fit.

This table is a numerical representation of Fig. 8 for all nuisance parameters.

Summary of observed and expected background yields in the SR after the likelihood fit under the background-only hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGWZ-H.

N-1 distribution for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGSlep-M.

N-1 distribution for $\sum{p_{\mathrm{T}}^\mathrm{jet}}$of observed data and expected background in SRUDD-ge2b.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRLQD.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSWZ-H.

N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSSlep-H(loose).

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 10(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 15(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 10(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 15(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 10(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 15(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 12(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 17(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 12(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 17(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 12(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 17(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 14(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 19(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 14(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 19(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 14(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 19(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 14(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 19(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Signal acceptance for SRLQD signal region from Fig 14(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Signal efficiency for SRLQD signal region from Fig 19(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 11(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 16(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 11(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 16(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 11(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 16(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 11(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 16(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 13(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 18(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 13(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 18(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 13(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 18(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 13(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 18(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 13(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 18(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-1b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge3b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRLQD in a susy scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2200 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1870 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H(loose) in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino-pair production decaying via W bosons.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino-pair production decaying via W bosons.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino-pair production decaying via W bosons.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of higgsino GGM scenarios.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of higgsino GGM scenarios.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of higgsino GGM scenarios.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of higgsino GGM scenarios.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of higgsino GGM scenarios.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of higgsino GGM scenarios.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{-}$.

The analyses used in combination for each scenario to set limits in models of the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{-}$.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

The analyses used in combination for each scenario to set limits in models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the simplified models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and Z bosons.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

The analyses used in combination for each scenario to set limits in models of chargino--neutralino production decaying via W and h bosons.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for higgsino GGM scenarios.

The analyses used in combination for each scenario to set limits in higgsino GGM scenarios.