Expected and observed upper limits on the AQGC operators $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$, with no unitarization. The $y$ axis shows the limit on the ratio of the observed cross section to the cross section predicted for each anomalous coupling value ($\sigma_\mathrm{AQGC}$).

Limits on LEP-like dimension-6 anomalous quartic gauge coupling parameters, with and without unitarization via a clipping procedure.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption of vanishing $WWZ\gamma$ couplings to eliminate some parameters. When quoting limits on one of the operators, the other is fixed to zero. The results for $|f_{M,0}/\Lambda^{4}|$ and $|f_{M,4}/\Lambda^{4}|$ are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV, when the other parameter is fixed to the SM value of zero.

Conversion of limits on $a^W_0$ and $a^W_C$ to dimension-8 $f_{M,i}$ operators, using the assumption that all $f_{M,i}$ except one are equal to zero. The results are shown with and without clipping of the signal model at 1.4 TeV.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^W_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^W_C/\Lambda^2$ with unitarization imposed by clipping the signal model at 1.4 TeV. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^W$ and $a_C^W$ couplings, respectively.

{Expected and observed limits in the two-dimensional plane of $a^Z_0/\Lambda^2$ vs. $a^Z_C/\Lambda^2$. The limits are described by analytical ellipses of equation $(x-x0)^2/a^2 + (y-y0)^2/b^2 = 1$ and rotated counter-clockwise by $\theta$ degrees, where $x$ and $y$ in the equation correspond to the $a_0^Z$ and $a_C^Z$ couplings, respectively.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb, divided by 〈TPPB〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Charged-hadron cross-section in pp collisions. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Charged-hadron spectrum in the centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe, divided by 〈TAA〉. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature. The systematic uncertainty on momentum bias is negligible at low pT; in such cases, it is omitted in the table below.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-60% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-90% for p+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Pb+Pb. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 0-5% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 5-10% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 10-20% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 20-30% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 30-40% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 40-50% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 50-60% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Nuclear modification factor in centrality interval 60-80% for Xe+Xe. The systematic uncertainties are described in the section 7 of the paper. The total systematic uncertainties are determined by adding the contributions from all relevant sources in quadrature.

Transverse momentum spectra for the jet region, obtained as toward-transverse. Events with a leading track with PT>5 GEV at midrapidity are selected. The spectrum is shown in Figure 1 (right panel).

Coalescence parameter B2 as a function of the transverse momentum per nucleon pT/A, in the underlying event (transverse region). Events with a leading track with PT>5 GEV at midrapidity are selected. The B2 is shown in Figure 2 (both panels).

Coalescence parameter B2 as a function of the transverse momentum per nucleon pT/A, in the jet (transverse-toward region). Events with a leading track with PT>5 GEV at midrapidity are selected. The B2 is shown in Figure 2 (both panels).

Fraction of non-prompt J/$\psi$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$.

d$^2\sigma$/d$y$d$p_{\rm T}$ in bins of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{J/\psi}$ for prompt J/$\psi$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV.

d$^2\sigma$/d$y$d$p_{\rm T}$ in bins of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{J/\psi}$ for non-prompt J/$\psi$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{pPb}$) of prompt J/$\psi$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV at midrapidity.

Nuclear modification factor ($R_{pPb}$) of non-prompt J/$\psi$ in p--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV at midrapidity.

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the dilepton transverse momentum $p^{ll}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the the four-body transverse momentum $p^{ll\gamma\gamma}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the four-body invariant mass $m_{ll\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Expected and observed $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameters $f_{T,j}/\Lambda^{4}$ of transverse dimension-8 operators. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level. No unitarity constraints are applied.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,8}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,0}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,1}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,2}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,5}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,6}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,7}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,9}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Antideuteron spectrum in 5-10% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 10-20% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 10-20% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 20-30% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 20-30% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 30-40% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 30-40% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 40-50% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 40-50% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 50-60% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 50-60% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 60-70% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 60-70% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 70-80% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 70-80% V0M centrality class

Deuteron spectrum in 80-90% V0M centrality class

Antideuteron spectrum in 80-90% V0M centrality class

$^3$He spectrum in 0-5% V0M centrality class

Anti$^3$He spectrum in 0-5% V0M centrality class

$^3$He spectrum in 5-10% V0M centrality class

Anti$^3$He spectrum in 5-10% V0M centrality class

$^3$He spectrum in 10-30% V0M centrality class

Anti$^3$He spectrum in 10-30% V0M centrality class

$^3$He spectrum in 30-50% V0M centrality class

Anti$^3$He spectrum in 30-50% V0M centrality class

$^3$He spectrum in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Anti$^3$He spectrum in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Triton spectrum in 0-10% V0M centrality class

Antitriton spectrum in 0-10% V0M centrality class

Triton spectrum in 10-30% V0M centrality class

Antitriton spectrum in 10-30% V0M centrality class

Triton spectrum in 30-50% V0M centrality class

Antitriton spectrum in 30-50% V0M centrality class

Triton spectrum in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Antitriton spectrum in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 0-5% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 5-10% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 10-20% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 20-30% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 30-40% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 40-50% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 50-60% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 60-70% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 70-80% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_2$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 80-90% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from anti$^3$He as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 0-5% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from anti$^3$He as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 5-10% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from anti$^3$He as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 10-30% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from anti$^3$He as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 30-50% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from anti$^3$He as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from antitriton as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 0-10% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from antitriton as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 10-30% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from antitriton as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 30-50% V0M centrality class

Coalescence parameter $B_3$ from antitriton as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Deuteron over proton ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

$^3$He over proton ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

Triton over proton ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

Triton over $^3$He ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 0-10% V0M centrality class

Triton over $^3$He ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 10-30% V0M centrality class

Triton over $^3$He ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 30-50% V0M centrality class

Triton over $^3$He ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 50-90% V0M centrality class

Triton over He3 ratio in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

pT-integrated yields of deuteron in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

pT-integrated yields of antideuteron in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

meanpT of deuteron in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

meanpT of antideuteron in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

pT-integrated yields of ${}^{3}$He in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

pT-integrated yields of anti${}^{3}$He in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

meanpTs of ${}^{3}$He in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

meanpT of anti${}^{3}$He in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

pT-integrated yields of Antitriton in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

meanpT of Antitriton in Pb-Pb collisions as a function of the charged particle multiplicity density at mid-rapidity

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 $10^{2}$

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

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

Correlation matrix for the unfolded cross section.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.2$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $20<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<40 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $40<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<60 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $60<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<80 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$Standard for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for WTA$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.3,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.2,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=0$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=1$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=2$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

$\Delta R_{\rm axis}$ distribution for Standard$\textendash$SD with grooming setting ($z_{\rm cut}=0.1,\beta=3$) for jets of $R=0.4$, in the interval $80<p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}<100 \ {\rm GeV}/c$.

Distribution of the most-probable value of the WTA$\textendash$Standard spectra as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}$ for $R=0.2$.

Distribution of the most-probable value of the WTA$\textendash$Standard spectra as a function of $p_{\rm T}^{\rm ch \ jet}$ for $R=0.4$.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Xi^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive $\Omega^{\pm}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Omega^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})/2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio of inclusive particles in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})/2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in jets and the underlying event in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratios of inclusive particles in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratios in jets and the underlying event in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$, $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ and $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / (\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+})$ ratios of inclusive particles in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$, $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ and $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / (\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+})$ ratios in jets and the underlying event in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential densities of ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) in jets and the underlying event in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive $\Xi^{\pm}$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Xi^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive $\Omega^{\pm}$ in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Omega^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})/2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in jets for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratios in jets for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$, $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ and $(\Omega^{-} + \Omega^{+}) / (\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+})$ ratios in jets in MB p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) for $0$-$10\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential densities of ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) in jets and the underlying event for $0$-$10\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive $\Xi^{\pm}$ for $0$-$10\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Xi^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event for $0$-$10\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) for $10$-$40\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential densities of ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) in jets and the underlying event for $10$-$40\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive $\Xi^{\pm}$ for $10$-$40\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Xi^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event for $10$-$40\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) for $40$-$100\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential densities of ${\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ and $\Lambda$ ($\overline{\Lambda}$) in jets and the underlying event for $40$-$100\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of inclusive $\Xi^{\pm}$ for $40$-$100\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential density of $\Xi^{\pm}$ in jets and the underlying event for $40$-$100\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})/2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio of inclusive particles for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})/2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in the underlying event for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})/2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in jets for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio of inclusive particles for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in the underlying event for $0$-$10\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in the underlying event for $10$-$40\%$ and $40$-$100\%$ event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / 2{\rm K}_{\rm S}^{0}$ ratio in jets for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratio of inclusive particles for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratio in the underlying event for $0$-$10\%$ event activity class in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratio in the underlying event for $10$-$40\%$ and $40$-$100\%$ event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential $(\Xi^{-} + \Xi^{+}) / (\Lambda + \overline{\Lambda})$ ratio in jets for various event activity classes in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.