The contribution from different systematic uncertainties to the measured $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ production cross section, grouped in categories.

The results of the fitted signal strength $\mu$ in the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/3L combined channel.

The results of fitted inclusive ${t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ cross-section in the 1L/2LOS and 2LSS/3L combined channel.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 1L,$\geq$9j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 1L,$\geq$9j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 2LOS,$\geq$7j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the sum of the pseudo-continuous b-tagging score over the six jets with the highest score in the 2LOS,$\geq$7j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of number of jets in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 1L,$\geq$8j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of b-jets multiplicity in the 2LOS,$\geq$6j,$\geq$3b region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,$\geq$5b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,$\geq$5b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bL signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bL signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bH signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bH signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,$\geq$5b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,$\geq$5b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,$\geq$4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,$\geq$4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bL signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bL signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bH signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bH signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,$\geq$4b signal region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,$\geq$4b signal region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,9j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 1L,$\geq$10j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,7j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bV validation region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the BDT score in the 2LOS,$\geq$8j,3bV validation region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,9j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,4b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,4b control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,$\geq$5b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 1L,8j,$\geq$5b control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bL control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bL control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bH control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,7j,3bH control region after the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,$\geq$4b control region before the fit.

Comparison between data and prediction for the distribution of the scalar sum of all jet and lepton pT in the event in the 2LOS,6j,$\geq$4b control region after the fit.

Distributions of $s_{\text{T}}$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\Sigma m_{\text{T}}(b_{1,2})$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Observed event yields in data ('Observed') and expected event yields for SM background processes obtained from the background-only fit ('Total bkg.' and rows below) in the signal regions of the di-tau and single-tau channels. The quoted uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero yield. By construction, no $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) events can pass the selections in the single-tau channel. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.

From left to right: upper limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_{\text{obs}}^{95}$). The third column ($S_{\text{exp}}^{95}$) shows the upper limit at the 95% CL on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\,\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis ($\text{CL}_{b}$), the discovery $p$-value ($p(s=0)$) and the significance ($Z$). In the di-tau SR, where fewer events are observed than predicted by the fitted background estimate, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the stop-stau signal model.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with additional gauge couplings (YM).

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Expected +- 1 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the Zprime-2HDM model.

Expected +- 2 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the Zprime-2HDM model.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model ggF production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model ggF production.

Expected +- 1 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model ggF production.

Expected +- 2 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model ggF production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model bbA production.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model bbA production.

Expected +- 1 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model bbA production.

Expected +- 2 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the 2HDM+a model bbA production.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limit for the Zprime-2HDM model with the benchmark used in arXiv:1707.01302.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limit for the Zprime-2HDM model with the benchmark used in arXiv:1707.01302.

Expected +- 1 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the Zprime-2HDM model with the benchmark used in arXiv:1707.01302.

Expected +- 2 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit for the Zprime-2HDM model with the benchmark used in arXiv:1707.01302.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on cross-section for Zprime-2HDM model.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on cross-section for ggF producton in the 2HDM+a model.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on cross-section for bbA producton in the 2HDM+a model.

Model-independent upper limits on the visible cross-section $σ_{vis, $h(\bar{b})+DM} ≡ σ_{h+DM} \times B(h \to b\bar{b}) \times \mathcal{A} \times \epsilon$ in the different signal regions.

Theory cross-section for Zprime-2HDM model.

Theory cross-section for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model.

Theory cross-section for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 2b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 2b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 2b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 2b region with MET=500-750 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 2b region with MET > 750 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 3b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 3b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 3b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Distribution of Higgs boson candidate mass in 3b region with MET > 500 GeV.

Yields in 1-lepton control region.

Yields in 2-lepton control region.

MET distribution in 2b region of the 0-lepton channel.

MET distribution in 3b region of the 0-lepton channel.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 2b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 2b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 2b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 2b region with MET=500-750 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 2b region with MET > 750 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 3b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 3b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 3b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Expected signal yields after certain selection cuts in 3b region with MET > 500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=500-750 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET > 750 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for bbA production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET>500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET=500-750 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 2b region with MET > 750 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the 2HDM+a model - 3b region with MET > 500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 2b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 2b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 2b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 2b region with MET=500-750 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 2b region with MET > 750 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 3b region with MET=150-200 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 3b region with MET=200-350 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 3b region with MET=350-500 GeV.

Acceptance times efficiency for ggF production in the Zprime-2HDM model - 3b region with MET > 500 GeV.

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.

Acceptance across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Acceptance across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).

Efficiency across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Efficiency across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. [$\kappa$ = 0]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. [$\kappa$ = 1]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% upper limits on the visible cross-section, $\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$, obtained from model-independent search by a signal-plus-background fit in the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of singly produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signal hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of singly produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signal hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of singly produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signal hypotheses from the combination of the high b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels.

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.0]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.7]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 2.5]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{MIN}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.0]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{MIN}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.7]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{MIN}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 2.5]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{YM}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.0]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{YM}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 1.7]

The signal acceptance times efficiency for single plus non-resonant produced LQ in the $U_1^{YM}$ model from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal regions for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels. [$\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of singly produced vector LQ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{YM}$ model ($\kappa$ = 0) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.0]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 1.7]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of the single plus non-resonant plus pair production of vector LQ from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ category for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$U_1^{MIN}$ model ($\kappa$ = 1) with $\lambda$ = 2.5]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines).Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. Results are extracted from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$\kappa$ = 0]

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced vector LQ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair vector LQ production (blue lines).Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. The dotted area shows the preferred region where the chosen LQ model can explain observed B anomalies. Results are extracted from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region. [$\kappa$ = 1]

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of singly-produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of singly-produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of singly-produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ signals from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.0 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production signal from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 1.7 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production signal from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits for $\lambda$ = 2.5 on the cross-section of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production signal from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ categories for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

The two-dimensional 95% CL exclusion limits in the $\lambda$-$m_{LQ}$ plane for singly plus non-resonant produced $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ (green lines) and for the sum, referred as Total, of single plus non-resonant plus pair $\widetilde{S_{1}}$ production (blue lines). Regions to the left of the lines are excluded. Results are extracted from the combination of the high and low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region for the $\tau_\text{lep}\tau_\text{had}$ and $\tau_\text{had}\tau_\text{had}$ channels, neglecting the interference between the LQ non-resonant production processes and the SM processes. However, the interference between the non-resonant LQ production and SM diagrams, such as those from Z+jets, could be non-negligible for events in the low b-jet $p_{T}$ signal region.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of n_ch for HMT events using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of k_T for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter &lambda; as a function of k_T for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R₂(Q), for pp collisions for track p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV in the multiplicity interval 71 &le; n_ch &lt; 80 for the minimum-bias (MB) events. The blue dashed and red solid lines show the results of the exponential and Gaussian fits, respectively. The region excluded from the fits is shown. The statistical uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty for imperfections in the data reconstruction procedure are added in quadrature.

The two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R₂(Q), for pp collisions for track p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV in the multiplicity interval 231 &le; n_ch &lt; 300 for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The blue dashed and red solid lines show the results of the exponential and Gaussian fits, respectively. The region excluded from the fits is shown. The statistical uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty for imperfections in the data reconstruction procedure are added in quadrature.

The dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(m_ch), on rescaled multiplicity, m_ch, obtained from the exponential fit of the R₂(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p_T &gt; 100 &nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13 &nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of &lambda;(m_ch) for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(m_ch), on rescaled multiplicity, m_ch, obtained from the exponential fit of the R₂(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p_T &gt; 100 &nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13 &nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of &lambda;(m_ch) for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(m_ch), on rescaled multiplicity, m_ch, obtained from the exponential fit of the R₂(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p_T &gt; 100 &nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13 &nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of &lambda;(m_ch) for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(m_ch), on rescaled multiplicity, m_ch, obtained from the exponential fit of the R₂(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p_T &gt; 100 &nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13 &nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of &lambda;(m_ch) for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the source radius, R(m_ch), on m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the source radius, R(m_ch), on m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the source radius, R(m_ch), on m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the source radius, R(m_ch), on m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The dependence of the R(m_ch) on &#8731;m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively

The dependence of the R(m_ch) on &#8731;m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively

The dependence of the R(m_ch) on &#8731;m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively

The dependence of the R(m_ch) on &#8731;m_ch. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &lt; 1.2 for p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m_ch) for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.45 with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for &#8731;m_ch &gt; 1.6 with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively

Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pair reference sample, for minimum-bias (MB) events, showing C₂^data(Q) (top panel) at 13&nbsp;TeV (black circles) and 7&nbsp;TeV (open blue circles), and the ratio of C₂^7&nbsp;TeV (Q) to C₂^13&nbsp;TeV (Q) (bottom panel). Comparison of C₂^data (Q) for representative multiplicity region 3.09 &lt; m_ch &le; 3.86. The statistical and systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature, are presented. The systematic uncertainties include track efficiency, Coulomb correction, non-closure and multiplicity-unfolding uncertainties.

Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pair reference sample, for minimum-bias (MB) events, showing C₂^data(Q) (top panel) at 13 &nbsp;TeV (black circles) and 7 &nbsp;TeV (open blue circles), and the ratio of C₂^7&nbsp;TeV (Q) to C₂^13&nbsp;TeV (Q) (bottom panel). Comparison of C₂^data (Q) for representative k_T region 400 &lt; k_T &le;500 &nbsp;MeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature, are presented. The systematic uncertainties include track efficiency, Coulomb correction, non-closure and multiplicity-unfolding uncertainties.

The k_T dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to &lambda;(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to &lambda;(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to &lambda;(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to &lambda;(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the source radius, R(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the source radius, R(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the source radius, R(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k_T).

The k_T dependence of the source radius, R(k_T), obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n_ch &ge; 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s=13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k_T).

The two-dimensional dependence on m_ch and k_T for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV for the correlation strength, &lambda;, obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m_ch &le; 3.08 and the HMT sample for m_ch &gt; 3.08.

The two-dimensional dependence on m_ch and k_T for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV for the source radius, R, obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m_ch &le; 3.08 and the HMT sample for m_ch &gt; 3.08.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.1 and 0.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.1 and 0.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.1 and 0.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.1 and 0.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The fit parameter &mu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &mu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &mu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &mu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &mu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &mu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &mu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &mu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &nu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &nu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &nu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &nu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &nu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &nu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The fit parameter &nu; describing the dependence of the correlation strength, &lambda;, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter &nu; on m_ch for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV (p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV).

The parameter &xi; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter &xi; for m_ch &gt; 3.0 for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for m_ch &gt; 2.8 for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &xi; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter &xi; for m_ch &gt; 3.0 for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for m_ch &gt; 2.8 for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &xi; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter &xi; for m_ch &gt; 3.0 for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for m_ch &gt; 2.8 for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &xi; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter &xi; for m_ch &gt; 3.0 for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for m_ch &gt; 2.8 for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &kappa; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter &kappa; for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &kappa; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter &kappa; for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &kappa; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter &kappa; for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The parameter &kappa; describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m_ch, for track p_T&gt;100&nbsp;MeV and track p_T&gt;500&nbsp;MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter &kappa; for tracks with p_T &gt;100&nbsp;MeV and for tracks with p_T &gt;500&nbsp;MeV, respectively.

The two-dimensional dependence on m_ch and k_T for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV for the correlation strength, &lambda;, obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m_ch &le; 3.08 and the HMT sample for m_ch &gt; 3.08.

The two-dimensional dependence on m_ch and k_T for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV for the source radius, R, obtained from the exponential fit to the R₂(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m_ch &le; 3.08 and the HMT sample for m_ch &gt; 3.08.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter &lambda; for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected low m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of k_T in selected high m_ch intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

The parameter R for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV as a function of m_ch in k_T intervals between 0.5 and 1.5&nbsp;GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.

ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n_ch in pp interactions at 13&nbsp;TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region&#8758; p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and |&eta;|&lt;2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to &#8731;n_ch at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.

ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n_ch in pp interactions at 13&nbsp;TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region&#8758; p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and |&eta;|&lt;2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to &#8731;n_ch at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.

ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n_ch in pp interactions at 13&nbsp;TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region&#8758; p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and |&eta;|&lt;2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to &#8731;n_ch at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.

ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of &#8731;n_ch in pp interactions at 13&nbsp;TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region&#8758; p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and |&eta;|&lt;2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to &#8731;n_ch at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.

ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of &#8731;n_ch in pp interactions at 13&nbsp;TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region&#8758; p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and |&eta;|&lt;2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to &#8731;n_ch at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.

ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of &#8731;n_ch in pp interactions at 13&nbsp;TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region&#8758; p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and |&eta;|&lt;2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to &#8731;n_ch at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.

Systematic uncertainties (in percent) in the correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, for the exponential fit of the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R₂(Q), for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s= 13&nbsp;TeV for the MB and HMT events. The choice of MC generator gives rise to asymmetric uncertainties, denoted by uparrow and downarrow. This asymmetry propagates through to the cumulative uncertainty. The columns under ‘Uncertainty range’ show the range of systematic uncertainty from the fits in the various n_ch intervals.

The results of the fits to the dependencies of the correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, on the average rescaled charged-particle multiplicity, m_ch, for |&eta;| &lt; 2.5 and both p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The parameters &gamma; and &delta; resulting from a joint fit to the MB and HMT data are presented. The total uncertainties are shown.

The results of the fits to the dependencies of the correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, on the pair average transverse momentum, k_T, for various functional forms and for minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV and p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. The total uncertainties are shown.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters &lambda; and R as a function of n_ch and k_T using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). (a) &lambda; versus n_ch for MB events, (b) &lambda; versus n_ch for HMT events, (c) &lambda; versus k_T and (d) R versus k_T for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters &lambda; and R as a function of n_ch and k_T using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). (a) &lambda; versus n_ch for MB events, (b) &lambda; versus n_ch for HMT events, (c) &lambda; versus k_T and (d) R versus k_T for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters &lambda; and R as a function of n_ch and k_T using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). (a) &lambda; versus n_ch for MB events, (b) &lambda; versus n_ch for HMT events, (c) &lambda; versus k_T and (d) R versus k_T for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters &lambda; and R as a function of n_ch and k_T using different MC generators in the calculation of R₂(Q). (a) &lambda; versus n_ch for MB events, (b) &lambda; versus n_ch for HMT events, (c) &lambda; versus k_T and (d) R versus k_T for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 10, (b) 11 &lt; n_ch &le; 20, (c) 21 &lt; n_ch &le; 30, (d) 31 &lt; n_ch &le; 40, (e) 41 &lt; n_ch &le; 50, (f) 51 &lt; n_ch &le; 60, (g) 61 &lt; n_ch &le; 70, (h) 71 &lt; n_ch &le; 80 and (i) 81 &lt; n_ch &le; 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 100, (b) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 125, (c) 126 &lt; n_ch &le; 150, (d) 151 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (e) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 100, (b) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 125, (c) 126 &lt; n_ch &le; 150, (d) 151 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (e) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 100, (b) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 125, (c) 126 &lt; n_ch &le; 150, (d) 151 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (e) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 100, (b) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 125, (c) 126 &lt; n_ch &le; 150, (d) 151 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (e) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 100, (b) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 125, (c) 126 &lt; n_ch &le; 150, (d) 151 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (e) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 101 &lt; n_ch &le; 110, (b) 111 &lt; n_ch &le; 120, (c) 121 &lt; n_ch &le; 130, (d) 131 &lt; n_ch &le; 140, (e) 141 &lt; n_ch &le; 155, (f) 156 &lt; n_ch &le; 175, (g) 176 &lt; n_ch &le; 200, (h) 201 &lt; n_ch &le; 230 and (i) 231 &lt; n_ch &le; 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n_ch - intervals&#8758; (a) 2 &lt; n_ch &le; 9, (b) 10 &lt; n_ch &le; 18, (c) 19 &lt; n_ch &le; 27, (d) 28 &lt; n_ch &le; 36, (e) 37 &lt; n_ch &le; 45, (f) 46 &lt; n_ch &le; 54, (g) 55 &lt; n_ch &le; 63, (h) 64 &lt; n_ch &le; 72, (i) 73 &lt; n_ch &le; 81, (j) 82 &lt; n_ch &le; 90, (k) 91 &lt; n_ch &le; 113, and (l) 114 &lt; n_ch &le; 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C₂^data(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k_T - intervals&#8758; (a) 100 &lt; k_T &le; 200&nbsp;MeV, (b) 200 &lt; k_T &le; 300&nbsp;MeV, (c) 300 &lt; k_T &le; 400&nbsp;MeV, (d) 400 &lt; k_T &le; 500&nbsp;MeV, (e) 500 &lt; k_T &le; 600&nbsp;MeV, (f) 600 &lt; k_T &le; 700&nbsp;MeV, (g) 700 &lt; k_T &le; 1000&nbsp;MeV, and (h) 1000 &lt; k_T &le; 1500&nbsp;MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.

The correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R₂(Q), in dependence on the multiplicity, m_ch, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. Statistical uncertainties for &radic;&chi;²/ndf&gt;1 are corrected by the &radic;&chi;²/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.

The correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R₂(Q), in dependence on the multiplicity, m_ch, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. Statistical uncertainties for &radic;&chi;²/ndf&gt;1 are corrected by the &radic;&chi;²/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.

The correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R₂(Q), in dependence on the pair transverse momentum, k_T, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p_T &gt; 100&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. Statistical uncertainties for &radic;&chi;²/ndf&gt;1 are corrected by the &radic;&chi;²/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.

The correlation strength, &lambda;, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R₂(Q), in dependence on the pair transverse momentum, k_T, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p_T &gt; 500&nbsp;MeV at &radic;s = 13&nbsp;TeV. Statistical uncertainties for &radic;&chi;²/ndf&gt;1 are corrected by the &radic;&chi;²/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.

Measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{-})$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{-}$ channel. The last $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin has no upper bound. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{+}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{-}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*+})$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{*+}$ channel. The last $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin has no upper bound. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*-})$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{*-}$ channel. The last $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ bin has no upper bound. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{*+}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{*-}$ channel. The displayed cross sections are integrated over each differential bin.

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{\pm})$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 3 and 4).

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 5 and 6).

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*\pm})$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 7 and 8).

The data statistical uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 9 and 10).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{\pm})$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 3 and 4).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{\pm}$ channel (Tables 5 and 6).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}(D^{*\pm})$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 7 and 8).

The combined statistical and systematic uncertainty covariance matrix for the differential $|\eta(\ell)|$ fit in the $D^{*\pm}$ channel (Tables 9 and 10).

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{+}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{-}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{-}+D^{*+}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Measured $|\eta(\ell)|$ differential fiducial cross-section times the single-lepton-flavor W boson branching ratio in the $W^{+}+D^{*-}$ channel with the full breakdown of uncertainties.

Descriptions of nuisance parameters.

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 $10^{2}$

Measured and predicted fiducial cross-sections in both the lllljj and ll$\nu\nu$jj channels for the inclusive ZZjj processes. Uncertainties due to different sources are presented.

Measured and predicted fiducial cross-sections in both the lllljj and ll$\nu\nu$jj channels for the inclusive ZZjj processes. Uncertainties due to different sources are presented.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ QCD CR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ QCD CR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\nu\nu jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\nu\nu jj$ SR.