Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SROS-on-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T}}^{\text{min}}$ in SROS-on-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$2\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed ($N_{\text{obs}}$) and expected ($N_{\text{exp}}$) yields after the background-only fit for the flavor-merged inclusive SRs. The third and fourth columns list the 95\% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section ($\sigma_{\text{vis}}^{95}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_\text{obs}^{95}$). The fifth column ($S_\text{exp}^{95}$) shows the 95\% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events and its $\pm 1\sigma$ variations. The last two columns indicate the CL$_{\text{b}}$ value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$) with its associated statistical significance $Z$. If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where only $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100~GeV.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SROS-off-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $m_{\text{T}}^{\text{min}}$ in SROS-off-b-$e\mu\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$eee$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Distribution of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in SRSS-$ee\mu$. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by a black arrow. The last bin includes the overflow. The `Others' category contains the production of Higgs boson, 3-top, 4-top, and single-top processes. Distributions for SBH signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the predicted total background yields. Ratio values outside the graph range are indicated by brown arrows. The hatched band includes all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ is considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm})$ vs $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 150 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on the SBH model where mass-degenerate $\tilde{e}_{\text{L}}$, $\tilde{\mu}_{\text{L}}$ and $\tilde{\nu}$ are considered. The expected 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a dashed black line, with the yellow band indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{exp}}$ including all uncertainties except for the signal cross-section uncertainty. The observed 95% CL exclusion limit is shown as a red solid line, with the dotted red lines indicating $\pm1\sigma_{\text{theory}}$ due to the signal cross-section uncertainty. The limits are shown projected onto the $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}^0_3, \tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}, \tilde{\chi}^0_3)$ plane, with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)$ assumed to be 100 GeV.

The expected upper limits on the cross-section for each signal point. The gray numbers represent the values. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid. An asymptotic approximation is employed in the CL$_{\text{s}}$ calculation instead of the full calculation using pseudo-experiments.

The observed upper limits on the cross-section for each signal point. The gray numbers represent the values. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid. An asymptotic approximation is employed in the CL$_{\text{s}}$ calculation instead of the full calculation using pseudo-experiments.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Acceptance for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in flavored-merged SRs. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events in the SR to the weighted total number of generated events. The selection is based on generator-level particle information.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Efficiencies for signals with $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=100$ GeV in the $m_{3\ell}$ merged SRSFOS and SRSS. The efficiency is defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level. Efficiencies below 0.002% are rounded to 0. The efficiency values are affected by statistical fluctuations due to the limited number of events.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown for SROS-on-b for reference. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown for SROS-off-b for reference. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Summary of the number of events passing each selection for the $m(\tilde{\ell}_{\text{L}}^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}^0_3,\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=(300, 200, 100)$, $(550, 300, 100)$, $(450, 180, 100)$ GeV signal points, including all production processes. After the initial selections, the table is split into row blocks per inclusive region, and then further for each SR channel. Flavor-binned SRs are shown. The generator level selections require to have two or more leptons.

Signal selection efficiency times acceptance for charged Higgs boson with masses between $60\,$GeV to $168\,$GeV. The efficiency times acceptance drops at high masses rapidly due to the low momentum of the $b$-quark produced together with the charged Higgs boson. For the $168\,$GeV mass point the efficiency times acceptance is larger than for the $160\,$GeV mass point due to having a higher probability that the top quark, which decays into the charged Higgs boson and a $b$-quark, is off-shell.

Best fit values of $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{HF}}$ parameters at charged Higgs masses between $60\,$GeV and $168\,$GeV.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2016 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 2.3%.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2017 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 3.7%.

Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2018 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 1.8%.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.

Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_150. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.

Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_300. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass channel for the exclusion and discovery signal regions as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. This treats the lack of availability of $b$-jet triggers as an inefficiency.

The particle-level acceptance for the low-mass exclusion and discovery signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass channel discovery regions as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the efficiency is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. The efficiency calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

The particle-level acceptance for the high-mass signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the acceptance is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 130 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 150 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dielectron invariant mass spectra from minimum-bias.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The TPC mid-rapidity multiplicity distributions ($|\eta|$ < 0.5) for the corresponding E-FTPC selected centrality bins.

Uncorrected charged particle multiplicity distribution measured in the TPC within $|\eta|$ < 0.5 in pp collisions at 200 GeV.

The ratio of the transverse overlap area $S_{⊥}$ to $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$ versus $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$.

The ratio of the transverse overlap area $S_{⊥}$ to $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$ versus $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$.

The ratio of the transverse overlap area $S_{⊥}$ to $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$ versus $(N_{part}/2)^{2/3}$.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

The ratio of the charged pion multiplicity to the transverse overlap area $dN_{\pi}/dy/S_{⊥}$ versus $N_{coll}/N_{part}$. Errors shown are total errors, dominated by systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are correlated between Npart, Ncoll, and S⊥, and are largely canceled in the plotted ratio quantities.

Energy loss effect for $\pi^{+-}$ (a), $K^{+-}$ (b), and p and pbar (c) at mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) as a function of particle momentum magnitude in 200 GeV pp and 62.4 GeV central 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Only negative particles are shown; energy loss for particles and antiparticles are the same. Errors shown are statistical only. The pion energy loss is already corrected by the track reconstruction algorithm.

Energy loss effect for $\pi^{+-}$ (a), $K^{+-}$ (b), and p and pbar (c) at mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) as a function of particle momentum magnitude in 200 GeV pp and 62.4 GeV central 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Only negative particles are shown; energy loss for particles and antiparticles are the same. Errors shown are statistical only. The pion energy loss is already corrected by the track reconstruction algorithm.

Energy loss effect for $\pi^{+-}$ (a), $K^{+-}$ (b), and p and pbar (c) at mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) as a function of particle momentum magnitude in 200 GeV pp and 62.4 GeV central 0-5% Au+Au collisions. Only negative particles are shown; energy loss for particles and antiparticles are the same. Errors shown are statistical only. The pion energy loss is already corrected by the track reconstruction algorithm.

Vertex-finding efficiency (ǫvtx) and fake vertex rate (δfake) as a function of the number of good global tracks (a) and the number of good primary tracks (b). Errors shown or smaller than the point size are statistical only.

Vertex-finding efficiency (ǫvtx) and fake vertex rate (δfake) as a function of the number of good global tracks (a) and the number of good primary tracks (b). Errors shown or smaller than the point size are statistical only.

The $p_{T}$ dependent correction to particle spectra due to fake vertex events, $\epsilon_{fake}(p_{T})$, in 200 GeV minimum bias pp and d+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

The $p_{T}$ dependent correction to particle spectra due to fake vertex events, $\epsilon_{fake}(p_{T})$, in 200 GeV minimum bias pp and d+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in pp (a) and d+Au collisions (b) at 200 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in pp (a) and d+Au collisions (b) at 200 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

Efficiency (product of tracking efficiency and detector acceptance) of π−, K−, and p in 70-80% peripheral Au+Au (a) and 0-5% central Au+Au collisions (b) at 62.4 GeV as a function of input MC p⊥. Errors shown are binomial errors. The curves are parameterizations to the efficiency data and are used for corrections in the analysis.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.40 < p⊥ < 0.45 GeV/c in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au. Errors shown are statistical only.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.70 < p⊥ < 0.75 GeV/c in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au. Errors shown are statistical only.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.40 < p⊥ < 0.45 GeV/c in 62.4 GeV 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

The dca distributions of protons and antiprotons for 0.70 < p⊥ < 0.75 GeV/c in 62.4 GeV 0-5% central Au+Au collisions. Errors shown are statistical only.

Pion background fraction from weak decays ($\Lambda, K_S^0$) and $\mu^{+-}$ contamination as a function of p⊥ in minimum bias d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Errors shown are statistical only.

Pion background fraction from weak decays ($\Lambda, K_S^0$) and $\mu^{+-}$ contamination as a function of p⊥ in minimum bias d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Errors shown are statistical only.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity identified antiproton spectra in 200 GeV minimum bias d+Au (a) and 62.4 GeV central Au+Au collisions (b) measured by dE/dx together with those by TOF [46, 47]. The dE/dx data are from |y| < 0.1 and the TOF data are from |y| < 0.5. The curves are various fits to the dE/dx data for extrapolation. The quadratic sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic errors are plotted, but are smaller than the point size.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The p and pbar spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for three centrality bins and for minimum bias events. Spectra from top to bottom are for 0-20% scaled by 4, 20-40% scaled by 2, minimum bias not scaled, and 40-100% scaled by 1/2. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the minimum bias data; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The p and pbar spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for three centrality bins and for minimum bias events. Spectra from top to bottom are for 0-20% scaled by 4, 20-40% scaled by 2, minimum bias not scaled, and 40-100% scaled by 1/2. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the minimum bias data; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in d+Au collisions at 200 GeV. The p and pbar spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for three centrality bins and for minimum bias events. Spectra from top to bottom are for 0-20% scaled by 4, 20-40% scaled by 2, minimum bias not scaled, and 40-100% scaled by 1/2. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the minimum bias data; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified particle spectra in Au+Au collisions at 62.4 GeV. The p and p spectra are inclusive, including weak decay products. Spectra are plotted for nine centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40%, 40-50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and 70-80%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but are smaller than the point size. The curves are the blast-wave model fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves in (a,b) are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Mid-rapidity (|y| < 0.1) identified pion spectra in Au+Au collisions at 130 GeV. Spectra are plotted for eight centrality bins, from top to bottom, 0-6%, 6-11%, 11-18%, 18- 26%, 26-34%, 34-45%, 45-58%, and 58-85%. Errors plotted are statistical and point-to-point systematic errors added in quadrature, but they are smaller than the data point size. The curves are the Bose-Einstein fits to the spectra; the normalizations of the curves are fixed by the corresponding negative particle spectra.

Estimate of the product of the Bjorken energy density and the formation time ($\epsilon_{B_j}\tau$) as a function of centrality Npart. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Estimate of the product of the Bjorken energy density and the formation time ($\epsilon_{B_j}\tau$) as a function of centrality Npart. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Estimate of the product of the Bjorken energy density and the formation time ($\epsilon_{B_j}\tau$) as a function of centrality Npart. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K+/π+ and K−/π− ratios as a function of the collision energy in pp and central heavy-ion collisions.

The K+/K− ratio as a function of the collision energy in central heavy-ion collisions.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of the number of participants Npart in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of the number of participants Npart in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of the number of participants Npart in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of dNπ/dy/S⊥ in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of dNπ/dy/S⊥ in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The K−/π− ratio as a function of dNπ/dy/S⊥ in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC. Errors shown are the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Baryon chemical potential extracted for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

The extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

The extracted chemical freeze-out temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

The extracted kinetic freeze-out temperatures for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Average transverse radial flow velocity extracted from the blast-wave model for central heavy-ion collisions as a function of the collision energy. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Phase diagram plot of chemical freezeout temperature versus baryon chemical potential extracted from chemical equilibrium models. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Phase diagram plot of chemical freezeout temperature versus baryon chemical potential extracted from chemical equilibrium models. Errors shown are the total statistical and systematic errors.

Differential cross-sections obtained from the optical and MC Glauber calculations for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Statistical errors are smaller than the point size.

Differential cross-sections obtained from the optical and MC Glauber calculations for Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV. Statistical errors are smaller than the point size.