Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 3.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 0.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the e+jet btag control region.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the $\mu$+jet btag control region.

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Branching ratio of $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}\rightarrow\phi\pi^+\rightarrow\mathrm{K}^+\mathrm{K}^-\pi^+$: $(2.22 \pm 0.06)\%$. Global relative uncertainty on BR: $2.7\%$ Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\Lambda_\mathrm{c}^{+}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\Xi_\mathrm{c}^{+}$ production cross section at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on luminosity: $1.6\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $1.9\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{*+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $0.7\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $2.8\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $3.2\%$

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential $\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}/(\mathrm{D}^{0}+\mathrm{D}^{+})$ ratio in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV Global relative uncertainty on BR: $3.3\%$

$\Lambda_\mathrm{c}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\Xi_\mathrm{c}^{+}/\mathrm{D}^{0}$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{0})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{0})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{*+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{*+})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Lambda^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\Lambda^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Xi^{+}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV $/ \sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV / $\sigma(\Xi^{0}_\mathrm{c})$ $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{0}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{*+}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$\mathrm{D}^{+}_\mathrm{s}$ ratio |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $2 < y < 2.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $3 < y < 3.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Double ratio $\mathrm{D}^{0}$ 13 TeV / 5.02 TeV |$y$| < 0.5 / $4 < y < 4.5$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

Charm $f_\mathrm{s}/(f_\mathrm{u}+f_\mathrm{d})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$f(\mathrm{c \rightarrow h_c})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

$f(\mathrm{c \rightarrow h_c})$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 TeV

$\sigma(\mathrm{c\bar{c}})$ at $|y|<0.5$ in pp collisions vs.$\sqrt{s}$

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 monopoles as a function of mass for magnetic charges $|g|=1g_D$ and $|g|=2g_D$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-0 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-1/2 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-0 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Inclusive cross section predictions up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured production cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ at QCD NLO accuracy from MCFM using different PDF sets

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Two dimensional observed likelihood profile scan as a function of mu_ggH and mu_qqH

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{-}_{\varphi Q}$ and $c_{\varphi t}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c_{tG}$ and $c_{t\varphi}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{Qt}$ and $c^{8}_{Qt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{QQ}$ and $c^{8}_{Qt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{Qt}$ and $c^{1}_{tt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

Observed $2 \Delta NLL$ of a 2D scan for $c^{1}_{QQ}$ and $c^{1}_{Qt}$ with the other WCs profiled.

The observed 90% C.L upper limit on neutrino effective millicharge (\delta_{Q}[e_{0}]) in SR1. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range.

The observerd 90% C.L upper limit on solar axion g_{ae} coupling constant in valid across the mass range for SR1. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of Solar Axion Mass .

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit on axion like particle (ALP) coupling constant (g_{ae}) in SR1. ALP mass spanning from 1 keV to 17 keV is considered. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of ALP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit on hidden photon (HP) coupling constant squared (\kappa^2) in SR1. HP mass spanning from 1 keV to 17 keV is considered. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of HP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-independent (cm^2) WIMP cross-section vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2), using the Migdal signal pathway. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-dependent WIMP cross-section (cm^2) vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2) for coupling on neutrons. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The observed 90% C.L. upper limit for the spin-dependent WIMP cross-section (cm^2) vs. WIMP mass (GeV/c^2) for coupling on protons. The result is obtained for WIMPs undergoing the Migdal effect from 0.5 to 9 GeV/c2. The data contains observed upper limit, median sensitivity and 1\sigma and 2\sigma sensitivity range as a function of WIMP Mass.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.