Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with nominal width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 3\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with narrow width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 0.01\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$, where $\varphi$ is the radion. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$, where $V$ is a beyond-the-SM vector boson. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $Z_{R} \to ggg$. The acceptance is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$)/$N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings).

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Observed local significance for a 3-body decay $ggg$ resonance, shown for resonances with nominal width (blue solid line) and narrow width (red dashed line).

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $ggg$ resonance.

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $qqq$ resonance.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $Z_{R}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $G_{KK}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $q^{*}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to Z_{R} \to ggg$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to G_{KK} \to \varphi(gg)g$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

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.

(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.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The BDT distribution (with x-axis zoomed in) of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the high mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} > 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.857 in the high mass region are discarded. The range of BDT scores is from 0.8 to 1.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.85 for $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

The $BDT_{tot}$ score for the benchmark signal $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV and for the main backgrounds. Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted line denotes the event selection threshold. Events with a $BDT_{tot}$ score below 0.75 for $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV are discarded.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in high mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT tight category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in low mass BDT loose category for the nonresonant $HH$ search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 370 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ for the selections used for the resonance mass point $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV for the resonant search. The data-derived fractions of nonresonant $\gamma\gamma$, $\gamma$-jet or jet-$\gamma$, and dijet background are applied and the total background is normalized to the data sideband. The scalar resonance signal is scaled to a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ = 67 fb.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of data events observed in the 120 GeV < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window, the number of $HH$ signal events expected for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1 and for $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 10, and events expected for single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. For the single Higgs boson, Rest includes VBF, $WH$, $tHqb$, and $tHW$. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = 1. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in $HH$ signals and single Higgs boson background include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross section of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}= \lambda_{HHH}/\lambda^{\textrm{SM}}_{HHH}$. The expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained with a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown. The theory prediction curve represents the scenario where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except for $\kappa_{\lambda}$. The uncertainty band of the theory prediction curve shows the cross-section uncertainty.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ratio ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties in the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence-level intervals.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

The number of events observed in the 120 < $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ < 130 GeV window in data, the number of events expected for scalar resonance signals of masses $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV and $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV assuming a total production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow X \rightarrow HH)$ equal to the observed exclusion limits of Figure 15, and events expected for SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production (estimated using MC simulation), as well as for continuum background. The values are obtained from a fit of the Asimov data set generated under the signal-plus-background hypothesis. The continuum background component of the Asimov data set is obtained from the fit of the data sideband. The uncertainties in the resonant signals and the SM $HH$ and single-Higgs-boson backgrounds include the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 6. The uncertainty in the continuum background is given by the sum in quadrature of the statistical uncertainty from the fit to the data and the spurious-signal uncertainty.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of a narrow-width scalar resonance $X$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$ of the hypothetical scalar particle. The black solid line represents the observed upper limits. The dashed line represents the expected upper limits. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties are also shown.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties. The impact of the uncertainties is defined according to the statistical analysis described in Section 7. It corresponds to the relative variation of the expected upper limit on the cross section when re-evaluating the profile likelihood ratio after fixing the nuisance parameter in question to its best-fit value, while all remaining nuisance parameters remain free to float. The impact is shown in %. Only systematic uncertainties with an impact of at least 0.2% are shown. Uncertainties of the "Norm. + Shape" type affect both the normalization and the parameters of the functional form. The rest of the uncertainties affect only the yields.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for nonresonant di-Higgs ggF signal sample, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 300 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for resonant signal sample, with $m_{X}$ = 500 GeV, yields are normalized to 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Comparison of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

Fit results of $m_{b\bar{b}}$ distributions when applying the specific b-jet energy calibration and the nominal jet energy calibration. The distributions are fitted using a Bukin function, and the values of the peak position, resolution and the relative improvement are reported in the legend.

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The relative amount (purity) of expected events from SM $HH$ and single Higgs boson production processes for each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b).

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

The expected significance in each of the four categories of the nonresonant search. The Higgs boson pair production with $k_{\lambda} = 1$ is considered as signal in (a), while the case with $k_{\lambda} = 10$ is considered as signal in (b). The single Higgs boson processes and the di-photon continuum spectrum are considered as background.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf for the various ggF nonresonant di-Higgs categories. In each category, the spurious signal value ($n_{sp}$) and its ratio to the expected statistical error ($Z_{spur}$) from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Spurious signal result for the exponential pdf as function of the resonant di-Higgs signal mass. The spurious signal value and its ratio to the expected statistical error from data are shown.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson ggF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Distributions of the signal efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$, for the di-Higgs boson VBF nonresonant production mode. The range of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in the table is from -10 to 10.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Values of the negative log-profile-likelihood ($-2ln\Lambda$) as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ evaluated for the combination of all the categories of the nonresonant search. The coupling of the Higgs boson to fermions and gauge bosons is set to SM values in the profile likelihood calculation. The Asimov data set is generated under the SM signal-plus-background hypothesis, $\kappa_{\lambda}$= 1. All systematic uncertainties, including the theoretical uncertainties on the di-Higgs boson production cross section, are included. The intersections of the solid curves and the horizontal dashed lines indicate the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence level intervals. The best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.8^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.5}_{-2.4}(^{+7.3}_{-4.2})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval. The dashed curves represent values of the negative log-profile-likelihood where the Higgs boson branching fractions and the cross section of the production modes are varied as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$. In this case,the best fit value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $2.7^{+2.0}_{-2.2}(^{+3.8}_{-4.3})$ and the expected value corresponds to $\kappa_{\lambda}$ = $1.0^{+5.4}_{-2.5}(^{+7.3}_{-4.3})$ for the 1$\sigma$(2$\sigma$) confidence interval.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Minimum BDT value of the events passing the selection criteria of the resonant search. The combined BDT score is formed using as coefficients $C_{1}$ = 0.65 and $C_{2}$ = 1 − $C_{1}$. The selection efficiency for the resonant $X \rightarrow HH$ signal is also shown.

Number of data events and the number of background events in the best-fit signal-plus-background model for the ggH Tag 2 category, in bins of $m_{ee}$. The number of signal events in the SM and at the observed limit are also provided in the same bins.

Number of data events and the number of background events in the best-fit signal-plus-background model for the ggH Tag 3 category, in bins of $m_{ee}$. The number of signal events in the SM and at the observed limit are also provided in the same bins.

Number of data events and the number of background events in the best-fit signal-plus-background model for the VBF Tag 0 category, in bins of $m_{ee}$. The number of signal events in the SM and at the observed limit are also provided in the same bins.

Number of data events and the number of background events in the best-fit signal-plus-background model for the VBF Tag 1 category, in bins of $m_{ee}$. The number of signal events in the SM and at the observed limit are also provided in the same bins.

Expected and observed limits at the 95%% C.L. on the branching fraction to an electron pair ($e^{+}e^{-}$) for a Higgs boson mass between 120 and 130 GeV.

Expected and observed limits at the 95%% C.L. on the branching fraction to an electron pair ($e^{+}e^{-}$) for each analysis category, and all categories combined. The results here are computed for $m_{H}=125.38$ GeV.

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

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

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

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

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

Post-fit distributions of $M_{\ell v jj}$ in the $R2B_A$ subregion for electrons. All process yields and nuisance parameters are set to the values obtained from the background plus signal fit. The signal considered for the fit corresponds to the purely right-handed production of a W' with $m_{W'}$ of 3.6 TeV and a relative width of 1$\%$ of the $m_{W'}$, and is represented by the solid red line. The lower panels show the data minus the expected number of events, normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data. The orange band represents the systematic uncertainties, also normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data.

Post-fit distributions of $M_{\ell v jj}$ in the $RW'_A$ subregion for muons. All process yields and nuisance parameters are set to the values obtained from the background plus signal fit. The signal considered for the fit corresponds to the purely right-handed production of a W' with $m_{W'}$ of 3.6 TeV and a relative width of 1$\%$ of the $m_{W'}$, and is represented by the solid red line. The lower panels show the data minus the expected number of events, normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data. The orange band represents the systematic uncertainties, also normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data.

Post-fit distributions of $M_{\ell v jj}$ in the $RW'_A$ subregion for electrons. All process yields and nuisance parameters are set to the values obtained from the background plus signal fit. The signal considered for the fit corresponds to the purely right-handed production of a W' with $m_{W'}$ of 3.6 TeV and a relative width of 1$\%$ of the $m_{W'}$, and is represented by the solid red line. The lower panels show the data minus the expected number of events, normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data. The orange band represents the systematic uncertainties, also normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data.

Post-fit distributions of $M_{\ell v jj}$ in the $RT_A$ subregion for muons. All process yields and nuisance parameters are set to the values obtained from the background plus signal fit. The signal considered for the fit corresponds to the purely right-handed production of a W' with $m_{W'}$ of 3.6 TeV and a relative width of 1$\%$ of the $m_{W'}$, and is represented by the solid red line. The lower panels show the data minus the expected number of events, normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data. The orange band represents the systematic uncertainties, also normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data.

Post-fit distributions of $M_{\ell v jj}$ in the $RT_A$ subregion for electrons. All process yields and nuisance parameters are set to the values obtained from the background plus signal fit. The signal considered for the fit corresponds to the purely right-handed production of a W' with $m_{W'}$ of 3.6 TeV and a relative width of 1$\%$ of the $m_{W'}$, and is represented by the solid red line. The lower panels show the data minus the expected number of events, normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data. The orange band represents the systematic uncertainties, also normalized to the statistical uncertainty of the data.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a left-handed production of a tb quark pair in the $s$-channel, mediated by a W or W' bosons and including interference terms, given as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a left-handed production of a tb quark pair in the $s$-channel, mediated by a W or W' bosons and including interference terms, given as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 10%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a left-handed production of a tb quark pair in the $s$-channel, mediated by a W or W' bosons and including interference terms, given as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 20%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a left-handed production of a tb quark pair in the $s$-channel, mediated by a W or W' bosons and including interference terms, given as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 30%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 10%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 20%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 30%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a left-handed W' boson in the tb final state, as functions of $m_{W'}$ and relative width $\Gamma/m_{W'}$. Numbers in red, written diagonally, represent values of the excluded cross sections that are lower than the theoretical ones for the analyzed model.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson in the tb final state, as functions of $m_{W'}$ and relative width $\Gamma/m_{W'}$. Numbers in red, written diagonally, represent values of the excluded cross sections that are lower than the theoretical ones for the analyzed model.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark for a mass of the W' boson of 2 TeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark for a mass of the W' boson of 2.8 TeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark for a mass of the W' boson of 3.6 TeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark for a mass of the W' boson of 4.4 TeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark for a mass of the W' boson of 5.2 TeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark for a mass of the W' boson of 6 TeV.

Expected 95% CL lower limit on $m_{W'}$ for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark.

Observed 95% CL lower limit on $m_{W'}$ for a generalized left-right coupling of the W' boson to a t and a b quark.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of the $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 10%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid curves show the theoretical expectation at LO in the case that the couplings, and thus the partial widths, are varied together with the total width. In this interpretation the branching fraction of the W' --> tb decays is the same for each value of the width of the W' boson.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of the $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 20%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid curves show the theoretical expectation at LO in the case that the couplings, and thus the partial widths, are varied together with the total width. In this interpretation the branching fraction of the W' --> tb decays is the same for each value of the width of the W' boson.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a right-handed W' boson and the W' --> tb branching fraction, as functions of the $m_{W'}$ for a relative width of 30%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid curves show the theoretical expectation at LO in the case that the couplings, and thus the partial widths, are varied together with the total width. In this interpretation the branching fraction of the W' --> tb decays is the same for each value of the width of the W' boson.