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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dielectron invariant mass spectra from minimum-bias.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^&beta;=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01 and m_&chi;=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selection efficiencies in % for the signal in the top squark search, estimated from the simulation.

The final $S_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the leptoquark search with the $\text{e}\tau_{\text{h}}$ and $\mu\tau_{\text{h}}$ channels combined. The last bin contains the overflow events.

The final $S_{\text{T}}$ distribution for the top squark search with the $\text{e}\tau_{\text{h}}$ and $\mu\tau_{\text{h}}$ channels combined. The last bin contains the overflow events.

The expected and observed combined upper limits on the third-generation LQ pair production cross section $\sigma$ times the square of the branching fraction, $\mathcal{B}^2$, at 95% CL, as a function of the LQ mass. These limits also apply to top squarks decaying directly via the coupling $\lambda^{\prime}_{333}$.

The expected and observed combined upper limits on the top squark pair production cross section $\sigma$ times the square of the branching fraction, $\mathcal{B}^2$, at 95% CL, as a function of the top squark mass. These limits apply to top squarks with a chargino-mediated decay through the coupling $\lambda^{\prime}_{3jk}$.

The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the branching fraction for the leptoquark decay to a tau lepton and a bottom quark, as a function of the leptoquark mass. A search for top squark pair production [EPJC 73(2013)2677] has the same kinematic signature as the leptoquark decay to a tau neutrino and a top quark. This search is reinterpreted to provide the expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for low values of $\mathcal{B}$, assuming the leptoquark only decays to third-generation fermions.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 6$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 7$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 8$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 3$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 4$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 5$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 6$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 7$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 8$.

Mean reconstruction efficiencies $(\epsilon)$ and RMS of the reconstruction efficiencies for various black hole and string ball models.

Expected and observed $am_{T2}$ distribution for bCd_high1 SR, before applying the $am_{T2}>200$ GeV requirement. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed leading b-jet $p_T$ distribution for bCd_high2 SR, before applying the leading b-jet $p_T>170$ GeV requirement. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed $E_T^{miss}$ distribution for tNbC_mix SR, before applying the $E_T^{miss}>270$ GeV requirement. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed lepton $p_T$ distribution for bCa_low SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed lepton $p_T$ distribution for bCa_med SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed $am_T2$ distribution for bCb_med1 SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Expected and observed $am_T2$ distribution for bCb_high SR. The uncertainty includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflows.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$). This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$). This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Best expected signal region for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Upper limits on the model cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$).

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$).

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ three-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bW\chi^0_1$).

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$).

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1$ four-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to bff'\chi^0_1$).

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=150$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=106$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+5$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\tilde t_1}-10$ GeV.

Upper limit on signal events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV.

Observed exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV.

Expected exclusion contour for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}=300$ GeV.

Acceptance of tN_diag SR ($E_T^{miss}>150$ GeV, $m_T>140$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCb_med2 SR ($am_{T2}>250$ GeV, $m_T>60$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCd_bulk SR ($am_{T2}>175$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCa_med for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCa_low for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCb_med1 for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of bCb_high for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of 3-body SR ($80<am_{T2}<90$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$). The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance of tNbC_mix SR for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Efficiency of tN_diag SR ($E_T^{miss}>150$ GeV, $m_T>140$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCb_med2 SR ($am_{T2}>250$ GeV, $m_T>60$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCd_bulk SR ($am_{T2}>175$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCa_med for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCa_low for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCb_med1 for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of bCb_high for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of 3-body SR ($80<am_{T2}<90$ GeV, $m_T>120$ GeV) for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$). The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency of tNbC_mix SR for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV; $E_T^{miss}$(gen)$>60$ GeV.

Number of generated events for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV; $E_T^{miss}$(gen)$>250$ GeV.

Number of generated events for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Number of generated events for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Cross-section for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Cross-section for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Cross-section for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tN_diag SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$, using the 2 highest $E_T^{miss}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tN_med SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tN_boost SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCb_med2 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$, using the 2 highest $am_{T2}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCc_diag SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCd_bulk SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$, using the 2 highest $am_{T2}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCd_high1 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCd_high2 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCa_med SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCa_low SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCb_med1 SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected bCb_high SR yields for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected 3-body SR yields for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$), using the 2 lowest $am_{T2}$ and 2 highest $m_T$ bins.

Combined experimental systematic uncertainty of expected tNbC_mix SR yields for the asymmetric scenario ($\tilde t_1$, $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, b $\chi^\pm_1$) with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in tN_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCb_med2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCd_bulk SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Observed CLs in bCa_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in bCa_low SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in bCb_med1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in bCb_high SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Observed CLs in 3-body SR for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Observed CLs in tNbC_mix SR for the mixed scenario (50% $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, 50% $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^0_1$).

Expected CLs in tN_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in tN_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in tN_boost SR for the $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$ scenario with $m_{\tilde t_1}>m_t+m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCb_med2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCc_diag SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCd_bulk SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCd_high1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCd_high2 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=2\times m_{\chi^0_1}$.

Expected CLs in bCa_med SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in bCa_low SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in bCb_med1 SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in bCb_high SR for the $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$ scenario with $m_{\chi^\pm_1}=m_{\chi^0_1}+20$ GeV.

Expected CLs in 3-body SR for the 3-body scenario ($\tilde t_1\to b W\chi^0_1$).

Expected CLs in tNbC_mix SR for the mixed scenario (50% $\tilde t_1\to t\chi^0_1$, 50% $\tilde t_1\to b\chi^\pm_1$).

Distribution of the transverse mass of the $W$-candidate $m_{\rm T}^{W}$ for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in SRlbb-1 and SRlbb-2, $m_{bb}$ sidebands. The background histograms are obtained from the background-only fit, and their uncertainty represents the total background uncertainty after the fit. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of the number of $b$-jets for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in SRlbb-1 and SRlbb-2 without the b-jet multiplicity requirement, central $m_{bb}$ bin. The background histograms are obtained from the background-only fit, and their uncertainty represents the total background uncertainty after the fit.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the $b$-jets $m_{bb}$ for the one lepton and two $b$-jets channel in the SRlbb-1 and SRlbb-2. The background histograms are obtained from the background-only fit, and their uncertainty represents the total background uncertainty after the fit.

Distribution of missing transverse momentum $E_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The last bin includes overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Distribution of the azimuth difference between the $W$ and Higgs boson candidates $\Delta\phi(W,h)$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Distribution of the transverse mass of the $W$ and photon system $m_{\rm{T}}^{W\gamma_1}$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The last bin includes overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Distribution of the transverse mass of the $W$ and photon system $m_{\rm{T}}^{W\gamma_2}$ in the one lepton and two photons signal regions SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1 and SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2 for the Higgs-mass window ($120\lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 130$ GeV). The final column (background) is a simulation-based cross check. The contributions from non-Higgs backgrounds are scaled by 10 GeV / 50 GeV = 0.2 from the $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ sideband ($100 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 120$ GeV and $130 \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt 160$ GeV) into the Higgs-mass window. The last bin includes overflow. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons signal region SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons signal region SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons validation region VR$l\gamma\gamma$-1. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Results of the background-only fit to the diphoton invariant mass, $m_{\gamma\gamma}$, distribution in the one lepton and two photons validation region VR$l\gamma\gamma$-2. The contributions from SM Higgs boson production are constrained to the MC prediction and associated systematic uncertainties. The fit is performed on events with 100 GeV $ \lt m_{\gamma\gamma} \lt $ 160 GeV, with events in SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 or SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 in the Higgs-mass window (120 GeV $\le m_{\gamma\gamma} \le$ 130 GeV) excluded from the fit.

Distribution of effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$ in the validation region of the same-sign $e\mu$ channel. This validation region is defined by requiring one, two, or three jets, and reversing the $m_{lj}$, $m_{ljj}$ criteria. The distribution of a signal hypothesis is also shown.

Distribution of effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet SR$ll$-1. SR$ll$-1 is the sum of SR$ee$-1, SR$e\mu$-1, and SR$\mu\mu$-1. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm eff}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of effective mass $m_{\rm eff}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with two or three jets SR$ll$-2. SR$ll$-2 is the sum of SR$ee$-2, SR$e\mu$-2, and SR$\mu\mu$-2. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm eff}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of largest transverse mass $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet SR$ll$-1. SR$ll$-1 is the sum of SR$ee$-1, SR$e\mu$-1, and SR$\mu\mu$-1. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of largest transverse mass $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with two or three jets SR$ll$-2. SR$ll$-2 is the sum of SR$ee$-2, SR$e\mu$-2, and SR$\mu\mu$-2. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{\rm T}^{\rm max}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of invariant mass of lepton and jet $m_{lj}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with one jet SR$ll$-1. SR$ll$-1 is the sum of SR$ee$-1, SR$e\mu$-1, and SR$\mu\mu$-1. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{lj}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

Distribution of invariant mass of lepton and di-jet $m_{ljj}$ for the same-sign dilepton channel in the signal regions with two or three jets SR$ll$-2. SR$ll$-2 is the sum of SR$ee$-2, SR$e\mu$-2, and SR$\mu\mu$-2. All selection criteria are applied, except for the one on $m_{ljj}$. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(130,0)$ GeV. The last bin includes overflow.

One lepton and two $b$-jets channel: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$.

One lepton and two photons channel: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$.

Same-sign dilepton channel: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$.

Combination: observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section normalised by the simplified model prediction as a function of the common mass $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}^0_2}$ for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}=0$. This combination is obtained using the result from the ATLAS three-lepton search, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 169, in addition to the three channels reported in this paper.

One lepton and two b-jets channel: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

One lepton and two b-jets channel: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

One lepton and two photons channel: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

One lepton and two photons channel: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Same-sign dilepton channel: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Same-sign dilepton channel: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Combination: Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Combination: Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for chargino neutralino production via Wh.

Combination: excluded model cross-section at 95% CL IN PB.

Acceptance SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1.

Acceptance SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2.

Efficiency SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-1.

Efficiency SR$\ell\gamma\gamma$-2.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the SR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the SR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the VR$l\gamma\gamma$-1 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

$m_{\gamma\gamma}$ distribution in the VR$l\gamma\gamma$-2 region for the full $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ window. The last column (background) is from a simulation-based cross check. $Z\gamma$ events, with $Z\rightarrow{ee}$ and one electron mis-identified as a photon, are included in the $Z\gamma(\gamma)$ background. The distributions of a signal hypothesis are also shown for $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=(165,35)$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRlbb-1, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Acceptance for SRlbb-1, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Acceptance for SRlbb-2, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Acceptance for SRlbb-2, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Efficiency for SRlbb-1, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Efficiency for SRlbb-1, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Efficiency for SRlbb-2, central $m_{bb}$ bin.

Efficiency for SRlbb-2, $m_{bb}$ sideband.

Acceptance for the same-sign $ee$ channel with one jet.

Acceptance for the same-sign $ee$ channel with two or three jets.

Acceptance for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with one jet.

Acceptance for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

Acceptance for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with one jet.

Acceptance for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

Efficiency for the same-sign $ee$ channel with one jet.

Efficiency for the same-sign $ee$ channel with two or three jets.

Efficiency for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with one jet.

Efficiency for the same-sign $e\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

Efficiency for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with one jet.

Efficiency for the same-sign $\mu\mu$ channel with two or three jets.

The observed and expected $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the dimuon SR-Z. The negigible estimated contribution from Z+jets is omitted in these distributions. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in SR-loose. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in SR-loose. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the four jet b-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in two-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in SR-Z.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in SR-Z.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in SR-Z.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in SR-Z.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Number of generated events in the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Production cross-section in the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Number of generated events in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Production cross-section in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Number of generated events in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Production cross-section in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Number of generated events in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Production cross-section in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Total experimental uncertainty [%] for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Total experimental uncertainty [%] for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Total experimental uncertainty for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Signal acceptance for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the combined electron and muon SR-Z.

Signal acceptance for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the combined electron and muon SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the dielectron SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the dielectron SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the dimuon SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the dimuon SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the electron and muon combined SR-Z.

Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the the electron and muon combined SR-Z.

Signal acceptance for the two-step first- and second-generation squarks simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Signal acceptance for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Signal efficiency for the two-step first- and second-generation squarks simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.

Signal efficiency for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.

Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.

Upper limits on the signal stength at 95% CL for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons. The excluded signal strength is defined as the ratio of the observed excluded production cross section to the expected production cross section calculated at NLO+NLL.

Upper limits on the signal stength at 95% CL for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons. The excluded signal strength is defined as the ratio of the observed excluded production cross section to the expected production cross section calculated at NLO+NLL.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in SR-Z for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. The three signal points are taken from the $\tan\beta = 1.5$ grid. 100000 events were generated for each of these points. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. The total experimental systematic uncertainty on the signal yields is indicated at the last cut, along with the corresponding observed and expected $CL_S$ values.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in the two jet b-veto SR of the off-$Z$ search for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3$^{-1}$. Except for the last two rows indicating the dilepton mass requirements, quoted event yields include all requirements from the top of the table down to the given row.

Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in the four jet b-veto SR of the off-$Z$ search for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. Except for the last two rows indicating the dilepton mass requirements, quoted event yields include all requirements from the top of the table down to the given row.