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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$K^-$ (a), invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 10--40\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$\phi$ meson (b) invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 10--40\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$\Xi^-$ (c) invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 10--40\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$K^-$ (a), invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 40--60\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

$\phi$ meson (b) invariant yields as a function of $m_T-m_0$ for various rapidity regions in 40--60\% central Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. Statistics and systematic uncertainties are added quadratic here for plotting. Solid and dashed black lines depict $m_T$ exponential function fits to the measured data points with arbitrate scaling factors in each rapidity windows.

Rapidity density distributions of $K^-$ (squares), $p_T$-integrated yields $dN/dy$ in 0--10\% (a), 10--40\% (b) and 40--60\% central (c) Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. %The full symbols show the measured data, while the open ones are data reflected with respect to $y=0$ in the center-of-mass frame. Solid lines depict Gaussian function fits to the data points.

Rapidity density distributions of $\phi$ meson (circles) $p_T$-integrated yields $dN/dy$ in 0--10\% (a), 10--40\% (b) and 40--60\% central (c) Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. %The full symbols show the measured data, while the open ones are data reflected with respect to $y=0$ in the center-of-mass frame. Solid lines depict Gaussian function fits to the data points.

Rapidity density distributions of $\Xi^-$ (diamonds) $p_T$-integrated yields $dN/dy$ in 0--10\% (a), 10--40\% (b) and 40--60\% central (c) Au+Au collisions at ${\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = \mathrm{3\,GeV}}$. %The full symbols show the measured data, while the open ones are data reflected with respect to $y=0$ in the center-of-mass frame. Solid lines depict Gaussian function fits to the data points.

$\phi/K^-$ (a) and $\phi/\Xi^-$ (b) ratio as a function of collision energy, $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$. The solid black circles show the measurements presented here in 0-10\% centrality bin, while empty markers in black or grey are used for data from various other energies and/or collision systems. The grey solid line represents a THERMUS calculation based on the Grand Canonical Ensemble (GCE) while the dotted lines depict calculations based on the Canonical Ensemble (CE) with different parameters of strangeness correlation radius ($r_c$). The green dashed line, green shaded band and the solid red line show transport model calculations from the public versions $\mathrm{UrQMD}^{1}$, modified $\mathrm{UrQMD}^{2}$ and SMASH, respectively.

Rapidity($y$) dependence of $v_1$ (top panels) and $v_2$ (bottom panels) of proton and $\Lambda$ baryons (left panels), pions (middle panels) and kaons (right panels) in 10-40% centrality for the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3GeV Au+Au collisions. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The UrQMD and JAM results are shown as bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. The value of the incompressibility $\kappa$ = 380 MeV is used in the mean-field option. More detailed model descriptions and data comparisons can be found in Supplemental Material.

Rapidity($y$) dependence of $v_1$ (top panels) and $v_2$ (bottom panels) of proton and $\Lambda$ baryons (left panels), pions (middle panels) and kaons (right panels) in 10-40% centrality for the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3GeV Au+Au collisions. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The UrQMD and JAM results are shown as bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. The value of the incompressibility $\kappa$ = 380 MeV is used in the mean-field option. More detailed model descriptions and data comparisons can be found in Supplemental Material.

Rapidity($y$) dependence of $v_1$ (top panels) and $v_2$ (bottom panels) of proton and $\Lambda$ baryons (left panels), pions (middle panels) and kaons (right panels) in 10-40% centrality for the $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3GeV Au+Au collisions. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The UrQMD and JAM results are shown as bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. The value of the incompressibility $\kappa$ = 380 MeV is used in the mean-field option. More detailed model descriptions and data comparisons can be found in Supplemental Material.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

$v_2$ scaled by the number of constituent quarks, $v_2/n_q$ , as a function of scaled transverse kinetic energy ($(m_T − m_0)/n_q$) for pions, kaons and protons from Au+Au collisions in 10-40% centrality at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 3, 27, and 54.4 GeV for positive charged particles (left panel) and negative charged particles (right panel). Colored dashed lines represent the scaling fit to data in 7.7, 14.5, 27, 54.4, and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions from STAR experiment at RHIC [43–45]. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

Collision energy dependence of (top panel) directed flow slope $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ for p, $\Lambda, \pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$), K(combined from $K^{\pm}$ and $K_S^0$), $\phi$ and $\Xi^−$, and (bottom panel) elliptic flow $v_2$ for p, $\pi$(combined from $\pi^{\pm}$) in heavy- ion collisions. Collision centrality for all data from RHIC is 10-40%, except for 4.5 GeV where 10-30% is for $dv_1/dy|_{y=0}$ and 0-30% is for $v_2$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and gray bands, respectively. Some uncertainties are smaller than the data points. The JAM and UrQMD results are shown as colored bands:golden, red and blue bands stand for JAM mean-field, UrQMD mean-field and UrQMD cascade mode, respectively. For clarity the x-axis value of the data points have been shifted.

The centrality dependence of Global $\Lambda$-hyperon Polarization at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=3$ GeV.

The $p_{\rm T}$ dependence of Global $\Lambda$-hyperon Polarization at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=3$ GeV.

The rapidity dependence of Global $\Lambda$-hyperon Polarization at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=3$ GeV.

Differential cross section as a function of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $p_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $a_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}*$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $\pi-\Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

Differential cross section as a function of $|cos\theta*|^{(CS)}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_2$ ratio vs $p_T$, p/d/3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$v_3$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT-FVTXN detector combination

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_2$ vs $\eta$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_3$ vs $\eta$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-BBCS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXS correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+p at 200 GeV, minimum bias, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, d+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$C(\Delta\phi)$ vs $\Delta\phi$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, CNT-FVTXN correlation

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+p at 200 GeV, Minimum Bias, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs detector combination, p+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, BBCS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXS-CNT detector combination

$c_n$ vs $p_T$, 3He+Au at 200 GeV, 0-5% central, FVTXN-CNT detector combination

95% CL exclusion limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$ for $m_a = 45$ GeV.

95% CL exclusion limits on $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b})$ for $m_a = 55$ GeV.

The fraction of $a$ boson decays matched to reconstructed displaced vertices passing all vertex selections in signal MC.

The extrapolated signal selection efficiency as a function of $c\tau_{a}$.

The contribution from different systematic uncertainties to the measured $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ production cross section, grouped in categories.

The results of the fitted signal strength $\mu$ in the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/3L combined channel.

The results of fitted inclusive ${t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ cross-section in the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/3L combined channel.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 1L,$\geq$9j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 1L,$\geq$9j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 2LOS,$\geq$7j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 2LOS,$\geq$7j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,$\geq$5b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,$\geq$5b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bL signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bL signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bH signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bH signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,$\geq$5b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,$\geq$5b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,$\geq$4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,$\geq$4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bL signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bL signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bH signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bH signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,$\geq$4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,$\geq$4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,4b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,4b control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,$\geq$5b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,$\geq$5b control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,$\geq$4b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,$\geq$4b control region after the fit.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 9 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 11 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 12 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 13 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for 14 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $1\ell$ category for at least 15 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 4 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 5 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 6 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for 9 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold regions defined for the EWK analysis in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 15 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 12 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 11 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $1\ell$ category for at least 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 20 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 10 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 8 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 7 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

The observed data event yields and the corresponding estimates for the backgrounds in the different $b$-jet multiplicity bins for the 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ threshold region in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category for at least 6 jets. The background is estimated by including all bins in the fit. All uncertainties, which may be correlated across the bins, are included in the total background uncertainty.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $1\ell$ category, as well as the observed and expected 95% CL model-independent upper limits on product of cross-section, acceptance and efficiency (in fb). The parameters of the model are determined in a fit to a reduced set of bins, corresponding to the model-independent fit discussed in the text.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category, as well as the observed and expected 95% CL model-independent upper limits on product of cross-section, acceptance and efficiency (in fb). The parameters of the model are determined in a fit to a reduced set of bins, corresponding to the model-independent fit discussed in the text.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with higgsino LSP hypothesis.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with higgsino LSP hypothesis.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with wino LSP hypothesis.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the RPV model with electroweakino prodiction with wino LSP hypothesis.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $1\ell$ category with 20 and 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $1\ell$ category with 60, 80 and 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category with 20 and 40 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Data event yields compared with the expected contributions from relevant background sources, in the discovery signal regions defined for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category with 60, 80 and 100 GeV jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ thresholds. The uncertainties across backgrounds can exhibit strong anticorrelations.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with bino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with wino LSP.

Expected 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Observed 95% CL excluded cross section for the stop pair production model with higgsino LSP.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with higgsino LSP in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the stop model with higgsino LSP in the $1\ell$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the stop model with higgsino LSP in the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 4 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 5 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 6 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 7 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 8 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category, considering $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 4 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 5 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 6 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 7 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $1\ell$ category with 8 jets, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Acceptance and efficiency for the or the electroweakino production model in the EWK analysis discovery SR for the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category, considering $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ production.

Cut flow for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}^0_1\rightarrow q\bar{q}q\bar{q} \ell\nu$ model with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} = 1$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow \bar{t}\tilde{t} \rightarrow \bar{t}\bar{b}\bar{s}$ model with with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 1.6$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{t}} = 1$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the gluino $\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \rightarrow t\bar{t} tbs$ model with $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2.2$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} = 1.05$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the stop model with $m_{\tilde{t}} = 1.175$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} = 0.7$ TeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the electroweakino production model, considering only the production of $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1$, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)= 250$ GeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. In the $2\ell^{\mathrm{sc}}$ category no events are expected, as only one lepton is expected to be produced in the decay.Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

Cut flow for the electroweakino production model, considering only the production of $\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_2$, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1,\tilde{\chi}^0_2)= 250$ GeV. The column labelled $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{raw}}$ shows the number of generated events, while $\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{events}}$ shows the expected number of events with a luminosity of 139fb$^{−1}$. The last column shows the cut flow efficiency with respect to all weighted events. The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 25$ GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. Selections that have not been evaluated in the analysis or are not applicable are denoted with a dash (--).

The centrality dependencies of the $\Delta\gamma\{\psi_\mathrm{ZDC}\}$ for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the A for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the a for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the A/a using full-event method for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the A/a using sub-event method for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the $f_\mathrm{CME}$ using full-event method for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the $f_\mathrm{CME}$ using sub-event method for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the $\Delta\gamma_\mathrm{CME}$ using full-event method for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The centrality dependencies of the $\Delta\gamma_\mathrm{CME}$ using sub-event method for Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The $f_\mathrm{CME}$ from different methods for 20-50% centrality Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The $f_\mathrm{CME}$ from different methods for 50-80% centrality Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The $\Delta\gamma_\mathrm{CME}$ from different methods for 20-50% centrality Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.

The $\Delta\gamma_\mathrm{CME}$ from different methods for 50-80% centrality Au+Au collision at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=200 GeV.