The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of pT in bins of rg for 30-50% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of pT in bins of rg for 10-30% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of pT in bins of rg for 0-10% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of rg in bins of pT for 50-80% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of rg in bins of pT for 30-50% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of rg in bins of pT for 10-30% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of per-event jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV as a function of rg in bins of pT for 0-10% centrality interval, normalized by the respective centrality interval's <TAA>. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of pT and in bins of rg for 50-80% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of pT and in bins of rg for 30-50% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of pT and in bins of rg for 10-30% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of pT and in bins of rg for 0-10% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of rg and in bins of pT for 50-80% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of rg and in bins of pT for 30-50% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of rg and in bins of pT for 10-30% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for jet RAA as a function of rg and in bins of pT for 0-10% centrality interval. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial Born-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial Born-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial Born-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial dressed-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial dressed-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial dressed-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial dressed-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Measured fiducial dressed-level cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The relative uncertainties are reported as percentages. The systematic uncertainties are in order of appearance: total uncorrelated systematic and correlated systematics related respectively to unfolding, electrons, muons, jets, reducible and irreducible backgrounds and pileup. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses combination, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination for the generic model (free floating $\kappa_t$, $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_V$ and $\kappa_\tau$). The observed best-fit value of $\kappa_\lambda$ for the generic model is shifted slightly relative to the other models because of its correlation with the best-fit values of the $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_t$ and $\kappa_\tau$ parameters, which are slightly below, but compatible with unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses combination derived from the combined single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs analyses.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses for the generic model (free floating $\kappa_t$, $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_V$ and $\kappa_\tau$).

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The observed constraint for the single- and double-Higgs combination for $\kappa_t$ values below unity is slightly less stringent than that for the single-Higgs fit alone due to the slightly higher best-fit value for this coupling modifier.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The observed constraint for the single- and double-Higgs combination for $\kappa_t$ values below unity is slightly less stringent than that for the single-Higgs fit alone due to the slightly higher best-fit value for this coupling modifier.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analysis. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analysis. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analysis. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analysis. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analyses. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analyses. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analyses. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analyses. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the sum of the ggF HH and VBF HH production cross-section from the bbbb, bb$\tau\tau$ and bb$\gamma\gamma$ decay channels, and their statistical combination. The value $m_H$=125.09 GeV is assumed when deriving the predicted SM cross section. The expected limit and the corresponding error bands are derived assuming the absence of the HH process with all nuisance parameters profiled to the observed data. The SM prediction together with its theoretical uncertainty is also shown (red vertical band).

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$–$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% (95%) CL contours.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$–$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 68% (95%) CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$-$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$-$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like T in an $(X,T)$ doublet (50% $T\rightarrow Zt$, 50% $T\rightarrow Ht$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like T in a $T$ singlet (50% $T\rightarrow Wb$, 25% $T\rightarrow Zt$, 25% $T\rightarrow Ht$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B for 100% $B\rightarrow Zb$.

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B in a $(B,Y)$ doublet (50% $B\rightarrow Zb$, 50% $B\rightarrow Hb$).

Expected and observed combined limits at 95% CL on the production cross-section of vector-like B in a B singlet (50% $B\rightarrow Wt$, 25% $B\rightarrow Zb$, 25% $B\rightarrow Hb$).

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ double-tag 1 signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ top-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ $V$-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ no-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ $VV$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ $H$-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 3$\ell$ top-tag signal region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 1$b$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Distribution of the final discriminant after the combined background-only fit in the 2$\ell$ 2$b$ control region. The signal contribution is the expected distribution for a singlet TT with a mass of 1.2 TeV. The last bin contains overflow.

Summary of observed and predicted yields in the control regions and signal region categories. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the background-only hypothesis across all control region and signal region categories. The uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Due to correlations, the total background uncertainty is not necessarily equal to the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties of the individual background processes. The expected yields for benchmark signals with mVLQ=1.2 TeV obtained by using their theoretical cross-sections are also shown with their pre-fit uncertainties. Dashes indicate negligible yields.

Summary of observed and predicted yields in the control regions and signal region categories. The background prediction is shown before the combined likelihood fit to data under the background-only hypothesis across all control region and signal region categories. The uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The expected yields for benchmark signals with mVLQ=1.2 TeV obtained by using their theoretical cross sections are also shown with their pre-fit uncertainties. Dashes indicate negligible yields.

Summary of data and background yields in all analysis categories after the background-only fit. The expected yields for singlet TT̄ signal with mT=1.2 TeV are also shown for comparison. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the total background prediction. The shaded band includes statistical and post-fit systematic uncertainties.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to neutrinos.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 260 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 300 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Acceptance times efficiency as a function of pseudoscalar resonant mass for each event selection step in the search for a neutral heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance that decays to a 400 GeV scalar resonance and a Z boson, which decays to charged leptons.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of a heavy large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a heavy scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 315 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a W boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 550 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for 400 GeV resonant $H\to 4b$ production in association with a Z boson.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 790 GeV narrow-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 300 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 420 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 320 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for a 700 GeV large-width pseudoscalar resonance decaying to a Z boson and a 380 GeV scalar resonance decaying to $H\to 4b$.

Data and post-fit signal and background from S+B fit for SM VHH production, with each Higgs boson decaying to $2b$.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Negative log-likelihood contours corresponding to 68% and 95% CL in the ($\kappa_{V}$, $\kappa_{F}$) plane obtained from a combined fit, assuming no contributions from invisible or undetected non-SM Higgs boson decays.

Reduced coupling strength modifiers $\kappa_{F}\cdot m_{F}/\text{vev}$ for fermions ($F=t,\,b,\,\tau,\,\mu$) and $\sqrt{\kappa_{V}}\cdot m_{V}/\text{vev}$ for vector bosons as a function of their masses $m_{F}$ and $m_{V}$ with vev = 246 GeV. Fit scenario with $\kappa_{c}=\kappa_{t}$ (coloured circle markers) is shown. Loop-induced processes are assumed to have the SM structure, and Higgs boson decays to non-SM particles are not allowed. The $p$-value for compatibility of the combined measurement and the SM prediction is 56%. The lower panel shows the values of the coupling strength modifiers.

Reduced coupling strength modifiers $\kappa_{F}\cdot m_{F}/\text{vev}$ for fermions ($F=t,\,b,\,\tau,\,\mu$) and $\sqrt{\kappa_{V}}\cdot m_{V}/\text{vev}$ for vector bosons as a function of their masses $m_{F}$ and $m_{V}$ with vev = 246 GeV. Fit scenario with $\kappa_{c}$ left free-floating (grey cross markers) is shown. Loop-induced processes are assumed to have the SM structure, and Higgs boson decays to non-SM particles are not allowed. The $p$-value for compatibility of the combined measurement and the SM prediction is 65%. The lower panel shows the values of the coupling strength modifiers. The grey arrow points in the direction of the best-fit value and the grey uncertainty bar extends beyond the lower panel range.

Reduced coupling strength modifiers and their uncertainties per particle type with effective photon, $Z\gamma$ and gluon couplings. The scenario where $B_{inv.}=B_{u.}=0$ is assumed is shown as solid lines. The $p$-value for compatibility with the SM prediction is 61% in this case. The scenario where $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$ are allowed to contribute to the total Higgs boson decay width while assuming that $\kappa_{V}\le1$ and $B_{u.}\ge0$ is shown as dashed lines.

Reduced coupling strength modifiers and their uncertainties per particle type with effective photon, $Z\gamma$ and gluon couplings. The scenario where $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$ are allowed to contribute to the total Higgs boson decay width while assuming that $\kappa_{V}\le1$ and $B_{u.}\ge0$ is shown as dashed lines. The lower panel shows the 95% CL upper limits on $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$.

Observed and predicted Higgs boson production cross sections in different kinematic regions. The $p$-value for compatibility of the combined measurement and the SM prediction is 94%. Kinematic regions are defined separately for each production process, based on the jet multiplicity, the transverse momentum of the Higgs ($p_{T}^{H}$) and vector bosons ($p_{T}^{W}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$) and the two-jet invariant mass ($m_{jj}$). The VH-enriched and VBF-enriched regions with the respective requirements of $m_{jj}\in[60, 120)$ GeV and $m_{jj}\notin[60, 120)$ GeV are enhanced in signal events from $VH$ and VBF productions, respectively.

Observed variations of −2 ln $\Lambda(\mu)$ as a function of $\mu$ with all systematic uncertainties included.

Observed variations of −2 ln $\Lambda(\mu)$ as a function of $\mu$ with with parameters describing theory uncertainties in background processes fixed to their best-fit values.

Observed variations of −2 ln $\Lambda(\mu)$ as a function of $\mu$ with parameters describing theory uncertainties in background and signal processes fixed to their best-fit values.

Observed variations of −2 ln $\Lambda(\mu)$ as a function of $\mu$ with all systematic uncertainties fixed to their best-fit values.

Cross sections for ggF, VBF, $WH$, $ZH$, $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$ production modes. The cross sections are normalized to their SM predictions, measured assuming SM values for the decay branching fractions. The black error bars, blue boxes and yellow boxes show the total, systematic, and statistical uncertainties in the measurements, respectively. The gray bands indicate the theory uncertainties on the SM cross section predictions. The level of compatibility between the measurement and the SM prediction corresponds to a $p$-value of $p_{SM}=65\%$.

Correlation matrix from the measurement of ggF, VBF, $WH$, $ZH$, $ttH$ and $tH$ production cross sections without theory uncertainties.

Correlation matrix from the measurement of ggF, VBF, $WH$, $ZH$, $ttH$ and $tH$ production cross sections with the theory uncertainties.

Cross sections for ggF, VBF, $WH$, $ZH$, $t\bar{t}H+tH$ production modes, obtained without including the theory uncertainties on the predicted SM cross sections in the fit. The cross sections are normalized to their SM predictions, measured assuming SM values for the decay branching fractions. The black error bars, blue boxes and yellow boxes show the total, systematic, and statistical uncertainties in the measurements, respectively. The gray bands indicate the theory uncertainties on the SM cross section predictions. The level of compatibility between the measurement and the SM prediction corresponds to a $p$-value of $p_{SM}=89\%$.

Correlation matrix from the measurement of ggF, VBF, $WH$, $ZH$, $ttH+tH$ production cross sections without theory uncertainties.

Correlation matrix from the measurement of the branching fractions, assuming SM values for the decay production cross sections and no contributions from non-SM decays to the total Higgs boson decay width.

Correlation matrix from the measured values of the production cross sections times branching fractions of the Higgs boson, for the combinations in which sufficient sensitivity is provided by the input analyses.

Observed correlation matrix from the fit of $\kappa_{V}$ and $\kappa_{F}$ coupling modifiers. No contributions from non-SM invisible and undetected Higgs boson decays are allowed, i.e. $B_{inv.}=B_{u.}=0$.

Negative log-likelihood contour corresponding to 68% CL in the ($\kappa_{V}$, $\kappa_{F}$) plane, corresponding to $H\to\gamma\gamma$ decay, obtained from a combined fit, assuming no contributions from invisible or undetected non-SM Higgs boson decays.

Negative log-likelihood contour corresponding to 68% CL in the ($\kappa_{V}$, $\kappa_{F}$) plane, corresponding to $H\to ZZ$ decay, obtained from a combined fit, assuming no contributions from invisible or undetected non-SM Higgs boson decays.

Negative log-likelihood contour corresponding to 68% CL in the ($\kappa_{V}$, $\kappa_{F}$) plane, corresponding to $H\to\tau\tau$ decay, obtained from a combined fit, assuming no contributions from invisible or undetected non-SM Higgs boson decays.

Negative log-likelihood contour corresponding to 68% CL in the ($\kappa_{V}$, $\kappa_{F}$) plane, corresponding to $H\to WW$ decay, obtained from a combined fit, assuming no contributions from invisible or undetected non-SM Higgs boson decays.

Negative log-likelihood contour corresponding to 68% CL in the ($\kappa_{V}$, $\kappa_{F}$) plane, corresponding to $H\to bb$ decay, obtained from a combined fit, assuming no contributions from invisible or undetected non-SM Higgs boson decays.

Observed correlation matrix from the fit of $\kappa_{Z}$, $\kappa_{W}$, $\kappa_{b}$, $\kappa_{t}$, $\kappa_{\tau}$ and $\kappa_{\mu}$ coupling modifiers with $\kappa_{c}$ = $\kappa_{t}$ in the fit. All fitted parameters are assumed to be positive. No contributions from non-SM invisible and undetected Higgs boson decays are allowed, i.e. $B_{inv.}=B_{u.}=0$.

Observed correlation matrix from the fit of the $\kappa_{Z}$, $\kappa_{W}$, $\kappa_{b}$, $\kappa_{t}$, $\kappa_{\tau}$, $\kappa_{\mu}$ and effective photon, $Z \gamma$ and gluon coupling modifiers. No contributions from non-SM invisible and undetected Higgs boson decays are allowed, i.e. $B_{inv.}=B_{u.}=0$.

Coupling-strength modifiers and their uncertainties for the effective photon, $Z\gamma$ and gluon couplings as free parameters and all other coupling modifiers set to unity. The scenario where $B_{inv.}=B_{u.}=0$ is assumed is shown as solid lines. The $p$-value of the compatibility with the SM prediction is 63% in this case. The scenario where $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$ are allowed to contribute to the total Higgs width is shown as dashed lines, with the corresponding $p$-value of 49%. Both $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$ are allowed to take negative values in the latter case.

Coupling-strength modifiers and their uncertainties for the effective photon, $Z\gamma$ and gluon couplings as free parameters and all other coupling modifiers set to unity. The scenario where $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$ are allowed to contribute to the total Higgs width is shown as dashed lines, with the corresponding $p$-value of 49%. Both $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$ are allowed to take negative values. The lower pad shows the 95% CL upper limits on $B_{inv.}$ and $B_{u.}$.

Negative log-likelihood contours corresponding to 68% and 95% CL in the ($\kappa_{g}$, $\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane obtained from a combined fit of ($\kappa_{g}$, $\kappa_{\gamma}$ and $\kappa_{Z\gamma}$) .

Measured ratios of coupling modifiers. The red line indicates the SM value of unity for each parameter. The level of compatibility between the combined measurement and the SM prediction corresponds to a $p$-value of 71% with ten degrees of freedom.

Best-fit values and uncertainties for the cross sections in each measurement region, normalized to the SM predictions for the various parameters. The measurements assume SM branching fractions for all measured decays. The black error bars, blue boxes and yellow boxes show the total, systematic, and statistical uncertainties in the measurements, respectively. The gray bands show the theory uncertainties on the predictions. The level of compatibility between the combined measurement and the SM prediction corresponds to a $p$-value of 94%.

Correlation matrix for the measured values of the simplified template cross sections.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{Z}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{Z}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{W}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{W}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{t}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{t}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{b}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{b}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{\tau}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{\tau}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{\mu}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{\mu}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{g}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{g}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{\gamma}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{\gamma}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{Z\gamma}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $\kappa_{Z\gamma}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $B_{inv.}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $B_{inv.}$.

Expected negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $B_{u.}$.

Observed negative log-likelihood scans as a function of $B_{u.}$.

The acceptances of STXS stage 1.2 kinematic regions in the Higgs boson production processes.

The per-jet charged particle yield in pPb and pp collisions for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 30~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons near a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} < \pi/8$).

The ratio of per-jet charged particle yields in pPb and pp collisions, $I_{pPb}$, for hadrons opposite to a $p_{T}^{\textrm{jet}} > 60~\textrm{GeV}$ jet ($\Delta\phi_{\textrm{ch,jet}} > 7\pi/8$).