2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{A})$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Observed limits of H(inv) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected limits of H(inv) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed limits of monoh(bb) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected limits of monoh(bb) at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to \mu\mu\tau\tau$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to bbbb$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to bb\mu\mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to 4 \mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to 4 \mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed limits of $h\to aa \to 4 \mu$ at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},m_{\chi})$ plane under the assumption of $m_{A}$ = 1.2 TeV, $tan\beta$ = 1.0 and $sin\theta$ = 0.35. Data points included are corresponding to the lower bound of the exclusion contour. The region above the bound was excluded.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{A},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.35.

Observed combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

1 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

2 sigma band of expected combination limits at 95% CL in the $(m_{a},tan\beta)$ plane under the assumption of $sin\theta$ = 0.7.

Observed and expected combination limits at 95% CL as a function of $sin\theta$ for the low-mass hypothesis $m_{A}$ = 0.6 TeV, $m_{a}$ = 200 GeV.

Observed and expected combination limits at 95% CL as a function of $sin\theta$ for the high-mass hypothesis $m_{A}$ = 1 TeV, $m_{a}$ = 350 GeV.

Observed and expected combination limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\chi}$ following the parameter choices of $m_{A}$ = 1 TeV, $m_{a}$ = 400 GeV.

$\pi^0$ invariant yields for different centralities. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

$\pi^0$ invariant yields for different centralities. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$s. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

$\pi^0$ $R_{AA}$ for the most central (0-5%) Au+Au collisions and PQM model calculations for different values of $<\bar{q}>$. The bin range is not an uncertainty in the x-axis because the actual uncertainty by having the finite bin width is corrected for by the bin-shift correction. These bins were constructed using the corrected finite values as centers.

Integrated nuclear modification factor ($R_{AA}$) for $\pi^0$ as a function of collision centrality.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Ht$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Cutflow table listing the number of events passing each criterion for a $T$-quark hypothesis with a mass of 1.6 TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$. The initial signal event yield is the predicted number of $T$-quark events inclusive in the Higgs-boson and top-quark decays for 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Wb$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

$\rm \Xi_c^+/D^0$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV for $|y|<0.5$.

$\rm \Xi_c^0/\Lambda_c^+$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV for $|y|<0.5$.

$\rm \Xi_c^{0,+}/\Sigma_c^{0,+,++}$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV for $|y|<0.5$.

The $p_{\rm T}-$ integrated cross section of prompt $\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}-$baryon production in pp collisions at 13 TeV for $|y| < 0.5$.

The $p_{\rm T}-$ integrated cross section of prompt $\Xi^{0}_{\rm c}-$baryon production in pp collisions at 13 TeV for $|y| < 0.5$.

The $p_{\rm T}-$ integrated cross section of prompt $\Xi^{+}_{\rm c}-$baryon production in pp collisions at 13 TeV for $|y| < 0.5$.

The branching-fraction ratio $\rm {\rm BR}(\Xi_c^0\rightarrow \Xi^-e^+\nu_e)/\rm {\rm BR}(\Xi_c^0\rightarrow \Xi^{-}\pi^+)$ in pp collisions at 13 TeV for $|y| < 0.5$.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{x2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{x2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^2_{y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x6}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x6}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{y6}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{y6}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x2y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x2y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{x}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{y4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^4_{y4}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x2y4}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x2y4}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x4y2}(q)$ Data. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Experimental correlation moments $R^6_{x4y2}(q)$ Fit. Systematic errors are less than the statistical errors.

Source function profile $S(r_x)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_x)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Source function profile $S(r_y)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_y)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Source function profile $S(r_z)$ Image in the PCMS.

Source function profile $S(r_z)$ Fit in the PCMS. The blue line represents the Hump fit.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_x)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_x)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_y)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_y)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_z)$ Image in the PCMS.

Associated correlation profile $C(q_z)$ Fit in the PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_x)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_x)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_y)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_y)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_z)$ in PCMS.

Source function comparison between Therminator calculation and image for $S(r_z)$ in PCMS.

$\Delta$$t_{LCM}$ from Therminator events compared with various assumptions for $\Delta\tau$ and resonance emissions.

$\Delta$$t_{LCM}$ from Therminator events compared with various assumptions for $\Delta\tau$ and resonance emissions.

Invariant yields of tritons at 19.6 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 27 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 39 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 54.4 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 62.4 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Invariant yields of tritons at 200 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.

Triton integral dN/dy in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 62.4, 200 GeV, all centrality

Invariant yields of inclusive proton at 54.4 GeV with DCA < 3 cm, all centralities

Inclusive proton integral dN/dy in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 54.4 GeV, with DCA < 3 cm.

Invariant yields of deuteron at 54.4 GeV, all centralities

Deuteron integral dN/dy in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Particle yield ratios at 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 62.4, and 200 GeV, 0%-10% centrality

Charged-particle multiplicity (dN_{ch}/d\eta) of light nuclei yield ratio, all centralities

Collision energy, centrality, and p_{T} dependence of light nuclei yield, 0%-10% and 40%-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV at 0-60% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7 GeV at 60-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 14.5 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 19.6 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 27 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 39 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 54.4 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4 GeV

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7 GeV at 0-60% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7 GeV at 60-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV at 0-40% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 11.5 GeV at 40-80% centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 27 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 39 GeV, all centrality

Invariant p_{T} spectra of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Integral yields dN/dy of primordial protons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 200, all centrality

Integral yields dN/dy of primordial antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 200, all centrality

Integral yields dN/dy of primordial protons and antiprotons in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4, all centrality

Proton feed-down fraction in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, 54.4, 200, all centrality

Antiproton weak decay feed-down fraction in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 7.7, 11.5, 14.5, 19.6, 27, 39, all centrality

Protons and antiprotons weak decay feed-down fraction in Au+Au collisions at SQRT(s_NN) = 62.4, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for primordial proton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for deuteron in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 7.7 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 11.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 14.5 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 19.6 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 27 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 39 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 54.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 62.4 GeV, all centrality

Fraction of the measured and extrapolated yield for triton in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV, all centrality

Theory cross sections vs m($\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$) for SMS model TChiHH-G, $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1, \widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ NLSPs only.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the TChiHH signal model as a function of the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses. Relative to Fig. 13, the binning of the table is adjusted to align with the model points that were sampled. In addition, a small correction has been applied that affects the cross section upper limits for points with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = 1$ GeV. For that row of points in the figure, the small region of model phase space reached by both the resolved and boosted selections was inadvertently double counted in computing the signal contribution to the predicted yield.

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Cross section, 95% CL upper limit plus theory vs m($\widetilde{g}$) for SMS model T5HH.

Pre-fit background covariance matrix $\sigma_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Pre-fit background correlation matrix $\rho_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Significance vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH.

Significance vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $275, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $50) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $450, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $200) for SMS model TChiHH.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1)$ for SMS model TChiHH-G. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and no constraint on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})$.

Efficiency vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Signal and control region populations for the resolved signature.

Signal and control region populations for the boosted signature.

Cut flow table for the resolved topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal models as successive selections are applied.

Cut flow table for the boosted topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal model points as successive selections are applied. Here the hadronic baseline is defined by $N_{\mathrm{jet}}\geq$2, \ptmiss$>$300 GeV, $\Delta\phi$ cuts, and the isolated lepton and track vetoes.