Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates over the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Measured partial decay rates $\Delta\Gamma$ (in units of $10^{-15}$ GeV) using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Average of normalized decay rates that are determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the partial decay rates determined with the matrix inversion unfolding method for the $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} e^- \bar\nu_e$ and $\overline{B}^0\to D^{*+} \mu^- \bar\nu_\mu$ decays.

Full experimental (statistical and systematic) correlations (in \%) of the normalized partial decay rates determined using the matrix inversion unfolding method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The $\Delta p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of photon-tagged jets as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

The double $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ ratio of $R_{\mathrm{AA}}^{\gamma\text{-jet}}/R_{\mathrm{AA}}^{\text{inclusive jet}}$ as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

The differential cross-section of photon-tagged jets as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in pp collisions.

The yields of photon-tagged jets as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Pb+Pb collisions for different centrality intervals.

The nuclear modification factor of photon-tagged jets as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for different centrality intervals.

The $\Delta p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of photon-tagged jets as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

The $R_{\mathrm{CP}}$ of photon-tagged jets as a function of jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The m(tt) distribution in the Lhi3_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The m(bb) distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The m(bb) distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt)$ in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=10. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=10. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in he (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=0.5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt)$ in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=0.5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=20. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown for comparison. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The m(tt) distribution in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown for comparison. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=550 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH i+ the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag 2L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag em region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag 2L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag em region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Local significance for lltt ggF signals for tanbeta=1. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Local significance for lltt bbA signals for tanbeta=20. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Local significance for vvbb ggF signals for tanbeta=1. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Local significance for vvbb bbA signals for tanbeta=20. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Signal acceptance times efficiency for lltt ggF signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Signal acceptance times efficiency for lltt bbA signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Signal acceptance times efficiency for vvbb ggF signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

Signal acceptance times efficiency for vvbb bbA signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The pT distribution of the third lepton in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The eta distribution of the H boson candidate in the rest frame of the A boson candidate in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The ETmiss distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The m_top_near distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The ETmiss distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

The m_top_near distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Invariant mass spectrum of $e^+e^-$ pairs inclusive in $p_T$ compared to expectations from the model of hadron decays for $p$+$p$ and for different Au+Au centrality classes. The charmed meson decay contribution based on PYTHIA [55] is included in the sum of sources (solid black line). The dotted line shows the contribution from charm calculated assuming an isotropic angular distribution. Statistical (bars) and systematic (boxes) uncertainties are shown separately. The systematic uncertainty on the expected hadronic sources is not shown: it ranges from ~10% in the $\pi^o$ region to ~30% in the region of the vector mesons. The uncertainty on the charm cross section, which dominates the IMR, is ~30% in both $p$+$p$ and in Au+Au collisions.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per binary collision in the mass range 1.2 to 2.8 GeV/$c^2$ as a function of $N_{part}$. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately. Also shown are two bands corresponding to different estimates of the contribution from charmed meson decays. The width of the bands reflects the uncertainty of the charm cross section only.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) Dielectron yield per participating nucleon pair ($N_{part}/2$) as function of $N_{part}$ for two different mass ranges (a: $0.15<m_{ee}<0.75$ GeV/$c^2$, b: $0<m_{ee}<0.1$ GeV/$c^2$) compared to the expected yield from the hadron decay model. The two lines give the systematic uncertainty of the yield from cocktail and charmed hadron decays. For the data statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown separately.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in $p$+$p$ (left) and minimum bias Au+Au collisions (right). The $p_T$ ranges are shown in the legend. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Electron pair mass distribution for Au+Au (Min.Bias) for $1.0<p_T<1.5$ GeV/$c$. The two component fit is explained in the text. The fit range is $0.12<m_{ee}<0.3$ GeV/$c^2$. The dashed (black) curve at greater $m_{ee}$ shows $f(m_{ee})$ outside of the fit range.

(Color online) Ratio R=(data-cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ of electron pairs for different $p_T$ bins in Min.Bias Au+Au collisions. The $p_T$ range of each panel is indicated in the figure.

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) The fraction of the direct photon component as a function of $p_T$. The error bars and the error band represent statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The curves are from a NLO pQCD calculation (see text).

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) Invariant cross section ($p$+$p$) and invariant yield (Au+Au) of direct photons as a function of $p_T$. The filled points are from this analysis and open points are from [81,82]. The three curves on the $p$+$p$ data represent NLO pQCD calculations, and the dashed curves show a modified power-law fit to the $p$+$p$ data, scaled by $T_{AA}$. The dashed (black) curves are exponential plus the $T_{AA}$ scaled $p$+$p$ fit.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

(Color online) The $e^+e^-$ pair invariant mass distributions in minimum bias Au+Au collisions for the low-$p_T$ range. The solid curves represent the cocktail of hadronic sources (see Sec. IV) and include contribution from charm calculated by PYTHIA using the cross section from Ref. [48] scaled by $N_{coll}$.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.8 $< p_T <$ 1.0 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.6 $< p_T <$ 0.8 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

Ratio of R = (data − cocktail)/$f_{dir}(m_{ee})$ for 0.4 $ < p_T <$ 0.6 GeV/c in minimum bias Au$+$Au collisions. The yellow band in each panel shows $\pm1\sigma$ band of a constant fit value to the data points.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). $p$$+$$p$ collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

(Color online) $p_T$ spectra of $e^+e^-$ pairs in $p$+$p$ (left) and Au+Au (right) collisions for different mass bins, which are fully acceptance corrected. Au+Au spectra are divided by $N_{part}/2$. The solid curves show the expectations from the sum of the hadronic decay cocktail and the contribution from charmed mesons. The dashed curves show the sum of the cocktail and charmed meson contributions plus the contribution from direct photons calculated by converting the photon yield from Fig. 34 to the $e^+e^-$ pair yield using Eqs. (31) and (B14). Au$+$Au collision data shown.

The $m_{T} - m_{0}$ spectrum for the mass range 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ after subtracting contributions from cocktail and charm. The spectrum is fully acceptance corrected. The systematic error band includes the difference in charm yields in this mass range. The spectrum is fit to the sum of two exponential functions which are also shown separately as the dashed and dotted lines. The solid line is the sum.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Local inverse slope of the $m_{T}$ spectra of electron pairs, after subtracting the cocktail and the charm contribution, for different mass bins. The local slope is calculated in different mass ranges, 0 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 0.6 GeV/$c^{2}$ and 0.6 < $m_{T} - m_{0}$ < 2.5 GeV/$c^{2}$. The solid and dashed lines show the local slope of the cocktail for the corresponding mass ranges.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions in the IMR. (top left) The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm. The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from (center) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] and (right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85]. The partonic yields (PY) have been added to the two scenarios for charmed mesons decays, i.e. (i) $PYTHIA$ and (ii) random $c\bar{c}$ correlation.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

invariant mass spectrum of e+e- pairs in MB Au+Au compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Au + Au collisions in the LMR. The data are compared to the sum of cocktail+charm (top left). The data are also compared to the sum of cocktail+charm and hadronic+partonic contributions from different models. The calculations are from The calculations are from (top right) Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], (bottom right) Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], and Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87].

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Ralf Rapp (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields and the different scenarios for the $\rho$ spectral function, namely “Hadron Many Body Theory” (HMBT) and “Dropping Mass” (DM). The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling 1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$. Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Kevin Dusling (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows compared to the expectations from the calculations of Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields. The calculations have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (where the contribution of the freeze-out $\rho$ meson is subtracted) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0<$p_{T}$<0.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (0.5<$p_{T}$<1.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.0<$p_{T}$<1.5 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Invariant mass spectrum of $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs in MB Au+Au for different $p_{T}$ ranges compared to predictions from Elena Bratkovskaya (1.5<$p_{T}$<2.0 GeV/$c$). Invariant mass spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions for different $p_{T}$ windows collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87], separately showing the partonic and the hadronic yields calculated with different implementations of the $\rho$ spectral function, namely according to collisional broadening, with or without a dropping mass scenario. The calculations which include the dropping mass scenario have been added to the cocktail of hadronic decays (which is calculated by the HSD model itself) and charmed meson decays products.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Ralf Rapp. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Kevin Dusling. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Subtracted $p_{T}$ spectrum in 300-750 compared to calculations from Elena Bratkovskaya. $p_{T}$ spectra of $e^{+}e^{−}$ pairs for 0.3 < $m_{ee}$ < 0.75 GeV/$c^{2}$ in Min. Bias Au + Au collisions compared to the expectations from the calculations of respectively R. Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83], Dusling and Zahed [19, 84, 85], Cassing and Bratkovskaya [20, 27, 86, 87]. The spectra are fully acceptance corrected. The curves show separately partonic and hadronic yields. For the curves of Rapp and van Hees [15, 18, 83] the two scenarios: Hadron Many Body Theory (HMBT) and Dropping Mass (DM) are shown. The sum is calculated with HMBT. The calculations are compared to the data from which the contributions of the cocktail of hadronic decays and charmed meson decays have been subtracted.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

Energy dependence of $v_2$ for $\pi^{\pm}$, $\phi$, $D^0$ and $e^{\rm HF}$ at the same transverse mass value $\left<k_{\rm T}\right>=\left<m_{\rm T}-m_0\right>$ = 0.93 GeV/$c^2$. The data points are from or interpolated from STAR and ALICE measurements. The $e^{\rm HF}$ $v_2$ shown here is at the same parent $D^0$ meson transverse mass position using the decay kinematics calculated from PYTHIA6. Data points at the same energy are shifted horizontally for clarity. Error bars depict combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Energy dependence of $v_2$ for $\pi^{\pm}$, $\phi$, $D^0$ and $e^{\rm HF}$ at the same transverse mass value $\left<k_{\rm T}\right>=\left<m_{\rm T}-m_0\right>$ = 0.93 GeV/$c^2$. The data points are from or interpolated from STAR and ALICE measurements. The $e^{\rm HF}$ $v_2$ shown here is at the same parent $D^0$ meson transverse mass position using the decay kinematics calculated from PYTHIA6. Data points at the same energy are shifted horizontally for clarity. Error bars depict combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Energy dependence of $v_2$ for $\pi^{\pm}$, $\phi$, $D^0$ and $e^{\rm HF}$ at the same transverse mass value $\left<k_{\rm T}\right>=\left<m_{\rm T}-m_0\right>$ = 0.93 GeV/$c^2$. The data points are from or interpolated from STAR and ALICE measurements. The $e^{\rm HF}$ $v_2$ shown here is at the same parent $D^0$ meson transverse mass position using the decay kinematics calculated from PYTHIA6. Data points at the same energy are shifted horizontally for clarity. Error bars depict combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.