Sample correlations in $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78) for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$ and reflected in the plot.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\eta$ ($|\Delta\phi|<$ 0.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\eta$.

Background subtracted sample correlations for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ on the near-side for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The dependence of the jet-like correlation is shown as a function of $\Delta\phi$ ($|\Delta\eta|<$ 1.78). The data are averaged between positive and negative $\Delta\phi$.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, 0-95% $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV and 0-12% central Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of jet-like yield on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu and 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu, 0-12% Au+Au and 40-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. The 5% systematic error due to the uncertainty on the associated particle's efficiency is not shown.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\phi$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{trigger}}$ for 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $p_T^{\mathrm{associated}}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ for 0-95% $d$+Au, 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV and $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, and 0-12% and 40-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-80% Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-95% $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for 0-60% Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of the widths in $\Delta\eta$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of ridge yield on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Ratio of the ridge and jet-like yields on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for $d$+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

Dependence of $V_{3\Delta}/V_{2\Delta}$ on $N_{part}$ for 3 $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ $<$ 6 GeV/$c$ and 1.5 GeV/$c$ $<$ $p_T^{associated}$ $<$ $p_T^{trigger}$ for Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The $\pi^0$ invariant mass peak positions and widths as a function of $p_{T}$ in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Photon conversion point radius distribution from real data and MC simulation in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Conversion probability correction factor for $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$

The overall detection efficiency of $\pi^0$ from embedding studt in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The overall detection efficiency of $\pi^0$ from embedding studt in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The overall detection efficiency of $\pi^0$ from embedding studt in 0-80% Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Invariant yield of STAR $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at midrapidity for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Invariant yield of STAR $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at midrapidity for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Invariant yield of STAR $\pi^0$ as a function of $p_{T}$ at midrapidity for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The ratios of STAR $\pi^0$ spectra over $\pi^{\pm}$ from STAR and $\pi^0$ from PHENIX for different collision centrality bins in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{CP}$ as a functon of $p_{T}$ of STAR $\pi^0$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

The nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ as a functon of $p_{T}$ of STAR $\pi^0$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 2. (Color online.) Event-by-event photon multiplicity distributions (solid circles) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV} .$ The distributions for top $0-5 \%$ central $\mathrm{Au}+$ Au collisions and top $0-10 \%$ central $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions are also shown (open circles). The photon multiplicity distributions for central collisions are observed to be Gaussian (solid line). Only statistical errors are shown. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several centrality classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 3. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200\mathrm{GeV}$. The results for several classes are shown. The solid curves are results of HIJING simulations for central $(0-5 \%$ for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $0-10 \%$ for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu})$ and $30-40 \%$ mid-central collisions. The errors shown are systematic, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 4. (Color online.) Top panel: The number of photons divided by $\left\langle N_{\text{part}}\right\rangle / 2$ as a function of average number of participating nucleons for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s} _{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ for $-3.7<\eta<-2.3 .$ Errors shown are systematic only and include those for $\left\langle N_{\text {part }}\right\rangle .$ Results from HIJING are shown as lines (solid for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and dashed for $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ ). Bottom panel: Same as above, for both photons and charged particles from PHOBOS [10]. NOTE: For points with invisible error bars, the point size was considered as an absolute upper limit for the uncertainty.

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

Fig. 5. (Color online.) Photon pseudorapidity distributions normalized by the average number of participating nucleon pairs for different collision centralities are plotted as a function of pseudorapidity shifted by the beam rapidity (-5.36 for $200 \mathrm{GeV}$ and -4.19 for $62.4 \mathrm{GeV}$ ) for $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Cu}+\mathrm{Cu}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=62.4$ and $200 \mathrm{GeV}$. Errors are systematic only, statistical errors are negligible in comparison. For clarity of presentation, results for only four centralities are shown. The $\mathrm{Cu}+$ Cu data are shifted by 0.1 unit in $\eta-y_{\text {beam }} .$ The solid line is a second order polynomial fit to the data (see text for details).

$e^+$ $e^-$ invariant mass pair distributions of signal pairs compared to the inclusive unlike sign and reconstructed background pairs in 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions.

Signal-to-background ratios in minimum bias p+p and Au+Au collisions.

Signal-to-background ratios in central p+p and Au+Au collisions.

Invariant mass spectrum in the STAR acceptance ($p_T^e$ > 0.2 GeV/c, |$\eta^e$| < 1, and |$y_{ee}$|) from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions.

Invariant mass spectrum in the STAR acceptance ($p_T^e$ > 0.2 GeV/c, |$\eta^e$| < 1, and |$y_{ee}$|) from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions in pT range 0 - 5 GeV/c. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different pT bins, and the comparison with model calculations.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions in pT range 5 - 10 GeV/c. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different pT bins, and the comparison with model calculations.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions in pT range 1 - 1.5 GeV/c. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different pT bins, and the comparison with model calculations.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions in pT range 1.5 - 2 GeV/c. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different pT bins, and the comparison with model calculations.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$ = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions integrated. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different pT bins, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 0 - 0.15 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 0.15 - 0.3 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 0.3 - 0.76 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 0.76 - 1.05 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 1.05 - 1.8 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 1.8 - 2.8 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

The integrated dielectron yield as a function of pair pT in invariant mass range 2.8 to 3.5 GeV/c^2 compared with cocktail. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for different mass ranges as a function of pair pT.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in different centralities. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for a centrality of 0-10%.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in different centralities. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for a centrality of 10-40%.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in different centralities. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for a centrality of 40-80%.

Invariant mass spectra from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au collisions in different centralities. The ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail for minimum bias.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 0 - 0.15 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 0.15 - 0.3 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 0.3 - 0.76 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 0.76 - 1.05 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 1.05 - 1.8 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 1.8 - 2.8 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

The integrated dielectron yield and ratio of dielectron yield over cocktail in different centralities for mass window 2.8 - 3.5 GeV/c^2, and the comparison with model calculations.

Dielectron invariant mass spectra from minimum-bias.

Dielectron invariant mass spectra from the most central (0-10%) collisions that we are able to achieve most statistics at present.

The ratio of the Npart-scaled dielectron yield between minimum-bias and the most central collisions.

Mass spectrum of the excess (data - cocktail) in the low-mass region in Au+Au minimum-bias collisions compared to model calculations.

The yields scaled by Npart for the $\rho$-like region with the cocktail subtracted.

The Omega-like region without cocktail subtraction as a function of Npart.

The Phi-like region without cocktail subtraction as a function of Npart.

Correlated charm contributions to the dielectron mass spectra for different assumptions of the correlation strength.

Slope parameters Teff versus invariant mass for dielectrons from charm hadron decays.

Omega meson invariant mass distribution from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions after subtraction of the combinatorial background using the mixed-event method.

Phi meson invariant mass distribution from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions after subtraction of the combinatorial background using the mixed-event method.

The widths and mass positions of the omega signal from data compared to the values from the PDG and the full Geant simulation.

The widths and mass positions of the phi signal from data compared to the values from the PDG and the full Geant simulation.

The efficiency and acceptance correction factor as function of pT for mid-rapidity omega and phi mesons.

The pT distributions of the omega meson invariant yields from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions.

The pT distributions of the phi meson invariant yields from SQRT($s_{NN}$) = 200 GeV Au+Au minimum-bias collisions.

Unlike-sign/like-sign pair acceptance difference correction factor with the PHENIX phi acceptance compared with the full acceptance.

Efficiency corrected invariant mass spectra calculated using the STAR data filtered with the PHENIX azimuthal angle acceptance. The data points are compared to cocktail simulations.

The same data points compared to theoretical model calculations of medium vector meson and QGP contributions.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^&beta;=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01 and m_&chi;=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Distribution of the transverse mass of the $W$-candidate $m_{\rm T}^{W}$ for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in SRlbb-1 and SRlbb-2, $m_{bb}$ sidebands. The background histograms are obtained from the background-only fit, and their uncertainty represents the total background uncertainty after the fit. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of the number of $b$-jets for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in SRlbb-1 and SRlbb-2 without the b-jet multiplicity requirement, central $m_{bb}$ bin. The background histograms are obtained from the background-only fit, and their uncertainty represents the total background uncertainty after the fit.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the $b$-jets $m_{bb}$ for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in the SRlbb-1 and SRlbb-2. The background histograms are obtained from the background-only fit, and their uncertainty represents the total background uncertainty after the fit.

Distribution of missing transverse momentum $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The last bin includes overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Distribution of the azimuth difference between the $W$ and Higgs boson candidates $\Delta\phi(W,h)$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Distribution of the transverse mass of the $W$ and photon system $m_{\rm{T}}^{W\gamma_1}$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The last bin includes overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Distribution of the transverse mass of the $W$ and photon system $m_{\rm{T}}^{W\gamma_2}$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The last bin includes overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons signal region SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons signal region SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons validation region VR$l\gamma\gamma$-1. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons validation region VR$l\gamma\gamma$-2. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Distribution of effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$ in the validation region of the same-sign $e\mu$ channel. This validation region is defined by requiring one, two, or three jets, and reversing the $m_{lj}$, $m_{ljj}$ criteria. The distribution of a signal hypothesis is also shown.

Distribution of effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet SR$ll$-1. SR$ll$-1 is the sum of SR$ee$-1, SR$e\mu$-1, and SR$\mu\mu$-1. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm eff}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with two or three jets SR$ll$-2. SR$ll$-2 is the sum of SR$ee$-2, SR$e\mu$-2, and SR$\mu\mu$-2. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm eff}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of largest transverse mass $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet SR$ll$-1. SR$ll$-1 is the sum of SR$ee$-1, SR$e\mu$-1, and SR$\mu\mu$-1. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of largest transverse mass $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with two or three jets SR$ll$-2. SR$ll$-2 is the sum of SR$ee$-2, SR$e\mu$-2, and SR$\mu\mu$-2. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of invariant mass of lepton and jet $m_{lj}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet SR$ll$-1. SR$ll$-1 is the sum of SR$ee$-1, SR$e\mu$-1, and SR$\mu\mu$-1. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{lj}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of invariant mass of lepton and di-jet $m_{ljj}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with two or three jets SR$ll$-2. SR$ll$-2 is the sum of SR$ee$-2, SR$e\mu$-2, and SR$\mu\mu$-2. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{ljj}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

One lepton and two $b$-jets channel: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$.

One lepton and two photons channel: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$.

Same-sign dilepton channel: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$.

Combination: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$. This combination is obtained using the result from the ATLAS three-lepton search, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 169, in addition to the three channels reported in this paper.

One lepton and two b-jets channel: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

One lepton and two b-jets channel: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

One lepton and two photons channel: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

One lepton and two photons channel: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Same-sign dilepton channel: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Same-sign dilepton channel: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Combination: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Combination: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Combination: excluded model cross-section at 95% CL IN PB.

Acceptance SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1.

Acceptance SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2.

Efficiency SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1.

Efficiency SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the VR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the VR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRlbb-1, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Acceptance for SRlbb-1, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Acceptance for SRlbb-2, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Acceptance for SRlbb-2, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Efficiency for SRlbb-1, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Efficiency for SRlbb-1, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Efficiency for SRlbb-2, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Efficiency for SRlbb-2, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Acceptance for the same-sign $ee$ channel with one jet.

Acceptance for the same-sign $ee$ channel with two or three jets.

Acceptance for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with one jet.

Acceptance for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

Acceptance for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with one jet.

Acceptance for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

Efficiency for the same-sign $ee$ channel with one jet.

Efficiency for the same-sign $ee$ channel with two or three jets.

Efficiency for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with one jet.

Efficiency for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

Efficiency for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with one jet.

Efficiency for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of the observed data ($n_\text{obs}$) with the predicted background ($n_\text{exp}$) in the validation and signal regions. The background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between data and predicted background, where the significance is based on the total uncertainty ($\sigma_\text{tot}$).

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly two signal leptons are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly one lepton plus one $\tau$ candidate are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

The $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $m_\text{T}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

The expected upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The observed upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.

The observed limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.

The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.

The $am_\text{T2}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.

Large-radius jet mass ($R=1.2$), decomposed into the number of small-radius jet constituents. The lower panel shows the ratio of the total data to the total prediction (summed over all jet multiplicities). Events are required to have one lepton, four jets with $p_\text{T}>80,50,40,40$ GeV, at least one $b$-tagged jet, $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}>200$ GeV, and $m_\text{T}>30$ GeV.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^\tau$ in data for a selection enriched in $t\bar{t}$ events with one hadronically decaying $\tau$. Events that have no hadronic $\tau$ candidate (that passes the Loose identification criteria, as well as other requirements) are not shown in the plot.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the models with direct stop pair production.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the gluino-mediated stop models. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for models with direct stop pair production. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Acceptance for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Efficiency for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.

Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.

Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.

Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.