Measured and expected differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV

Measured and expected differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 0.0$< y_{4l} <$0.4

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ in bin of 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for MELA$<$1.4 bin

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for MELA$>$1.4 bin

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for $eeee$ events

Measured and expected double differential cross-section $\text{d}\sigma / \text{d} m_{4l}$ as a function of $m_{4l}$ for $ee\mu\mu$ events

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$ distribution.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$ distribution.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$ distribution.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution.<br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0$< p_{T}^{4l} < $20 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 2.<br> Bins labelled 10-16 correspond to the 20$< p_{T}^{4l} <$50 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 3.<br> Bins labelled 17-23 correspond to the 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 4.<br> Bins labelled 24-30 correspond to the 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 5.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0$< p_{T}^{4l} < $20 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 2.<br> Bins labelled 10-16 correspond to the 20$< p_{T}^{4l} <$50 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 3.<br> Bins labelled 17-23 correspond to the 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 4.<br> Bins labelled 24-30 correspond to the 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 5.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0$< p_{T}^{4l} < $20 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 2.<br> Bins labelled 10-16 correspond to the 20$< p_{T}^{4l} <$50 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 3.<br> Bins labelled 17-23 correspond to the 50$< p_{T}^{4l} <$100 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 4.<br> Bins labelled 24-30 correspond to the 100$< p_{T}^{4l} <$600 GeV bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 5.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$y_{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0.0$< y_{4l} < $0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 6.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to the 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 7.<br> Bins labelled 19-26 correspond to the 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 8.<br> Bins labelled 27-34 correspond to the 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 9.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$y_{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0.0$< y_{4l} < $0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 6.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to the 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 7.<br> Bins labelled 19-26 correspond to the 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 8.<br> Bins labelled 27-34 correspond to the 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 9.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-$y_{4l}$ distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to the 0.0$< y_{4l} < $0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 6.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to the 0.4$< y_{4l} <$0.8 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 7.<br> Bins labelled 19-26 correspond to the 0.8$< y_{4l} <$1.2 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 8.<br> Bins labelled 27-34 correspond to the 1.2$< y_{4l} <$2.5 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 9.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-MELA distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-7 correspond to the MELA$<$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 10.<br> Bins labelled 8-12 correspond to the MELA$>$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 11.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-MELA distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-7 correspond to the MELA$<$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 10.<br> Bins labelled 8-12 correspond to the MELA$>$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 11.

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-MELA distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-7 correspond to the MELA$<$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 10.<br> Bins labelled 8-12 correspond to the MELA$>$ 0.4 bin with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 11.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-lepton flavour distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 12.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to $eeee$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 13.<br> Bins labelled 19-27 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 14.<br>

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-lepton flavour distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 12.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to $eeee$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 13.<br> Bins labelled 19-27 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 14.<br>

Background covariance matrix for the differential $m_{4l}$-lepton flavour distribution. <br><br> Bins labelled 1-9 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 12.<br> Bins labelled 10-18 correspond to $eeee$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 13.<br> Bins labelled 19-27 correspond to $\mu\mu\mu\mu$ events with $m_{4l}$ values as listed in Table 14.<br>

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.

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 $10^{2}$

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading lepton pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading photon pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the leading jet pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the Zy system pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the dijet rapidity difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The EW-Zy jj differential cross-section in the Signal Region as a function of the Zy and dijet azimuthal difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading lepton pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading photon pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the leading jet pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Z boson pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Zy system pT. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the dijet invariant mass. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the dijet rapidity difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the Zy and dijet azimuthal difference. The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

The total Zy jj differential cross-section in the Extended SR as a function of the centrality of the system ζ(Zy). The lower panels show the ratios of the MC predictions to the data. The band around unfolded data represents the total uncertainty (including statistical uncertainty) and takes into account the correlations as obtained from the fit. The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the prediction. Events beyond the upper limit of the histogram are included in the last bin.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 900 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 950 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1000 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1050 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1100 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1150 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1200 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1300 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like top quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1400 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 800 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 900 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 950 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1000 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1050 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1100 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1150 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1200 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1300 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the vector-like bottom quark pair-production signal strength (i.e. the ratio sigma_exclusion/sigma_VLQ) as a function of the branching ratio for a vector-like quark mass of 1400 GeV, asumming that the vector-like quarks exclusively decay to SM particles (and third generation quarks). If interpreting these results in models with decays to non-Standard-Model particles, one must check that the additional decays will not end up in any control regions of the relevant analyses.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $T$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of a vector-like $B$ quark in the branching-ratio plane.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $T\bar T$ cross section as a function of $T$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Wb$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($T\to Zt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Wt$)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the $B\bar B$ cross section as a function of $B$ mass under the assumption BR($B\to Zb$)=1.

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 1

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the RS bulk model with k/MPl = 2

Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both lephad and hadhad channels in the scalar model

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio for non-resonant HH at 95% CLS and their interpretation as multiples of the SM prediction

Upper limits on the production cross-section times the HH to bbtautau branching ratio divided by the SM prediction for non-resonant HH at 95% CL

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis

Exclusion limits on higgsino pair production divided by the theory cross-section.The results of the low-mass analysis are used below m(higgsino) = 300 GeV, while those of the high-mass analysis are used above. The figure shows the observed and expected 95% upper limits on the higgsino pair production cross-section as a function of m(higgsino).

Observed and expected 95% limits in the m(higgsino) vs BR(higgsino to higgs+gravitino) plane. The regions above the lines are excluded by the analyses.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the high-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the high-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

The observed and expected 95% upper limits on the total pair production cross section for degenerate higgsinos as a function of m(higgsino) for the low-mass search, divided by the theory cross section. Only the low-mass analysis results are used in this figure.

Particle-level acceptance for the low-mass discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the low-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions low-SR-MET0-meff440 and low-SR-MET150-meff440, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Particle-level acceptance for the high-mass discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons that subsequently both decay to b-quarks.

The experimental efficiency of the high-mass analysis, for the two discovery signal regions SR-4b-meff1-A-disc and SR-3b-meff3-A, as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selection divided by the number of events passing the event selection for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selection that emulate the detector-level selection. Such particle-level selection is not applied on the numerator.

Example cutflow for SR-3b-meff3-A.

Example cutflow for SR-4b-meff1-A-disc.

Cutflow for low-mass analysis for each signal mass point.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 2, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 3, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.

The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.

Comparison of the distribution of the scalar sum of small-$R$ jet and lepton transverse momenta, $S_T$, between data and the background prediction in the signal region of the pair-production (PP) $\geq 3\ell$ channel. The background prediction is shown post-fit, i.e. after the fit to the data $S_T$ distributions under the background-only hypothesis. The last bin contains the overflow. An example distribution for a $B\bar B$ signal in the singlet model with $m_B$ = 900 GeV is overlaid.

Comparison of the distribution of the invariant mass of the $Z$ boson candidate and the highest-$p_T$ top-tagged large-$R$ jet, $m_{Zt}$, between data and the background prediction in the signal region of the single-production (SP) 2$\ell$ channel. The background prediction is shown post-fit, i.e. after the fit to the data $m_{Zt}$ distributions under the background-only hypothesis. The last bin contains the overflow. An example distribution for a single-$T$-quark signal with $m_T$ = 900 GeV and $\kappa_T = 0.5$ is overlaid.

Comparison of the distribution of the scalar sum of small-$R$ jet and lepton transverse momenta, $S_T$, between data and the background prediction in the signal region of the single-production (SP) $\geq 3\ell$ channel. The background prediction is shown post-fit, i.e. after the fit to the data $S_T$ distributions under the background-only hypothesis. The last bin contains the overflow. An example distribution for a single-$T$-quark signal with $m_T$ = 900 GeV and $\kappa_T$ = 0.5 is overlaid.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $T\bar T$ in the singlet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $B\bar B$ in the singlet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $T\bar T$ in the doublet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $B\bar B$ in the doublet model. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $T\bar T$ with a BR of 100$\%$ to $Zt$. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section of vector-like quark pair production (PP) for $B\bar B$ with a BR of 100$\%$ to $Zb$. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits.

Expected 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$, adding up to unity.

Observed 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$, adding up to unity.

Expected 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$, adding up to unity.

Observed 95$\%$ CL lower limits from the combination of the pair-production channels on the mass of vector-like quarks for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$, adding up to unity.

Upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section times BR to $Zt$ of single production (SP) of a $T$-quark. The expected limits are shown for the combination of the channels, as are the observed limits. The expected cross section times BR to $Zt$ for single-$T$-quark production is also shown for a coupling $\kappa_T = 0.5$, which corresponds to a coupling of $c_W = \sqrt{c^2_{W,L} + c^2_{W,R}} = 0.45$ from Ref. [14]. The BR assumed here corresponds to the singlet benchmark model, i.e. $\approx 25\%$.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL limits from the combination of the single-production channels on the coupling of the $T$ quark to SM particles, $c_W = \sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$, assuming the singlet-model BR of $\approx 25\%$, as a function of the mass of the $T$ quark, $m_T$. Values of $c_W$ larger than the observed limit are excluded.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL limits from the combination of the single-production channels on the mixing angle in the singlet model between the $T$ quark and the top quark, $|\sin\theta_L|$, as a function of the mass of the $T$ quark, $m_T$. Values of $|\sin\theta_L|$ enclosed by the observed limit are excluded, i.e. for $m_T$ larger than $\approx 1200$ GeV, no value of $|\sin\theta_L|$ is excluded.

Expected lower limit from the combination of the single-production channels on the mass of the $T$ quark as a function of the couplings of the $T$ quark to the $W$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$, and to the $Z$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$ with the assumption of equal BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$ and $T\rightarrow Ht$ in the limit of large $T$-quark masses.

Observed lower limit from the combination of the single-production channels on the mass of the $T$ quark as a function of the couplings of the $T$ quark to the $W$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$, and to the $Z$ boson, $\sqrt c^2_L + c^2_R$ with the assumption of equal BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$ and $T\rightarrow Ht$ in the limit of large $T$-quark masses.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 500 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 600 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 700 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 750 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 800 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 850 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 900 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 950 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1000 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1050 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1100 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1150 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1200 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1300 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow T\bar T)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $T\rightarrow Zt$, $T\rightarrow Ht$, $T\rightarrow Wb$ adding up to unity for a $T$-quark mass of 1400 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 500 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 600 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 700 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 750 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 800 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 850 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 900 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 950 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1000 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1050 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1100 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1150 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1200 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1300 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on $\sigma(pp\rightarrow B\bar B)$ for the combination of the pair-production channels for all combinations of BRs for $B\rightarrow Zb$, $B\rightarrow Hb$, $B\rightarrow Wt$ adding up to unity for a $B$-quark mass of 1400 GeV.

Observed upper limits at 95$\%$ CL on the cross section times BR to $Zt$ as a function of the vector-like $T$-quark mass and coupling $\kappa_T$ for the combination of the SP $2\ell$ and SP $\geq 3\ell$ channels.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the singlet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the singlet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the doublet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the doublet model in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $T\bar T$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $T \rightarrow Zt$ in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for the $B\bar B$ process in the case of 100$\%$ BR for $B \rightarrow Zb$ in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for single-$T$-quark production with $\kappa_T = 0.5$ in the SP $2\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal cutflows for single-$T$-quark production with $\kappa_T = 0.5$ in the SP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 0-large-$R$ jet SR. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $2\ell$ $0-1$J channel in the 1-large-$R$ jet SR. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $2\ell$ $\geq 2$J channel. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the PP $\geq 3\ell$ channel. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the SP $2\ell$ channel for $\kappa_T = 0.5$. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Signal efficiencies in $\%$ in the SP $\geq 3\ell$ channel for $\kappa_T = 0.5$. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Measured differential cross sections for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process as a function of $p_{T}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}$ in the inclusive $N_{jets} \geq 0$ extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Measured differential cross sections for the $pp \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ process as a function of $p_{T}^{\nu\bar{\nu}}$ in the exclusive $N_{jets} = 0$ extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Measured differential cross sections as a function of $N_{jets}$ in the extended fiducial region defined in the paper.

Observed and expected one dimensional 95% C.L. limits on vertex function parameters for the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ vertices.

Observed and expected one dimensional 95% C.L. limits on EFT parameters for the $ZZ\gamma$ and $Z\gamma\gamma$ vertices.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on model-independent visible cross-sections, along with the observed $p0$ values, for the stable signal region, as a function of different mass windows, for which the lower bound is shown. The upper boundary on the mass window is 5 TeV for all windows.

The observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on model-independent visible cross-sections, along with the observed $p0$ values, for the metastable signal region, as a function of different mass windows, for which the lower bound is shown. The upper boundary on the mass window is 5 TeV for all windows.

For each gluino lifetime and mass in the signal samples, the lower boundary of the mass window in which at least $70\%$ of the reconstructed signal appears. The upper boundary for all mass windows is 5 TeV.

Acceptance and efficiency for a representative set of pair-produced gluino signal samples. The mass of the gluino ($m(\tilde{g})$), its lifetime ($\tau(\tilde{g})$) and the mass of the neutralino ($m(\tilde{\chi}^{0})$) are given in the first three columns. The Pythia 6.4.27 signal samples shown in this table are not reweighted to match the transverse momentum of the gluino-gluino system as simulated by MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of events passing a loose set of fiducial requirements. The full simulation efficiency (Full sim. $\epsilon$) is defined as the ratio of the number of reconstructed events, as expected by the full ATLAS simulation, and the number of events passing the fiducial requirements. The parameterised simulation efficiency (Param. sim. $\epsilon$) is defined as the ratio of the number of events estimated using a set of parametrised efficiencies (see auxiliary Figures 9,10,11,12) and the number of events passing the fiducial requirements alone.

The reconstructed candidate track mass distributions for observed data, predicted background, and the expected contribution from two signal models in the metastable R-hadron signal region. The yellow band around the background estimation includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The reconstructed candidate track mass distributions for observed data, predicted background, and the expected contribution from two signal models in the stable R-hadron signal region. The yellow band around the background estimation includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 10$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for stable gluino $R$-hadrons, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

Observed 95% lower limits on the gluino mass in the gluino lifetime--mass plane. The excluded area is to the left of the curves.

Expected 95% lower limits on the gluino mass in the gluino lifetime--mass plane. The excluded area is to the left of the curves.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 1$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 3$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 30$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The 95% CL upper limit on the cross-section as a function of mass for gluinos with lifetime $\tau = 50$ ns decaying into $q\bar{q}$ and a 100 GeV neutralino, with the observed limit shown as a solid black line. The predicted production cross-section values are shown in purple along with their uncertainty. The expected upper limit in the case of only background is shown by the dashed black line, with a green $\pm 1\sigma$ and a yellow $\pm 2\sigma$ band.

The relationship between generated and reconstructed mass for gluino $R$-hadrons. Above 1500 GeV, the reconstructed mass falls below the generated mass due to bias in the reconstructed momentum. The uncertainty on the reconstructed mass is dominated by momentum uncertainty. The black dots represent the reconstructed mass computed as the most probable value of a Gaussian fit function, with the error bars showing its statistical uncertainty, while the orange band is the full-width at half maximum of the reconstructed mass distribution.

The parameterised efficiency for events to pass metastable event selections (including trigger, E$_{T}^{miss}$, and event cleaning requirements) as a function of the true E$_{T}^{miss}$ in the system, which is calculated at generator level. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events which have at least true E$_{T}^{miss} > 50$ GeV. The metastable event efficiencies are evaluated for different radial regions depending on the smallest radial distance, R, at which an R-hadron decays in the detector.

The parameterised efficiency for events to pass metastable event selections (including trigger, E$_{T}^{miss}$, and event cleaning requirements) as a function of the true E$_{T}^{miss}$ in the system, which is calculated at generator level. Event-level efficiencies are evaluated for events which have at least true E$_{T}^{miss} > 50$ GeV. The stable event efficiencies are evaluated for samples in which no R-hadron decays within the detector.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$, and for different radial decay positions of the particle. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

The parameterised efficiency for particles to pass full track selections in the metastable signal region, as function of the particle’s $\beta$, in different bins of transverse momentum, $p_{T}$. The stable efficiency is evaluated for samples which do not decay within the detector. The efficiency is evaluated for particles which pass a loose set of fiducial requirements at generator level.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of gluon-fusion initialted resonant production of the mass of the resonance times the branch ratio of X to HH and the BR of HH to gammagamma WW, without assuming the BR of H to gammagamma and H to WW.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the hMSSM, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Observed a95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the $m_{H}^{mod-}$ scenario, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the tan$\beta$ - $m_H$ plane shown in the context of the $m_{H}^{mod-}$ scenario, for the regions in which theoretical predictions are available (0.5$\leq\text{tan}\beta\leq60$).

Differential cross sections in the full phase space obtained from the H->gammagamma and H->4l combined measurement for the transverse momentum of the leading jet pTj1. The first bin in the pTj1 distribution corresponds to the 0-jet bin in the Njets distribution. The NNLOPS ggF prediction scaled to the N3LO cross section is also provided.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of Higgs transverse momentum, in the 4l channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of Higgs transverse momentum, in the gamma gamma channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of Higgs rapidity, in the 4l channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of Higgs rapidity, in the gamma gamma channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of number of jets, in the 4l channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of number of jets, in the gamma gamma channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of the transverse momentum of the leading jet, in the 4l channel.

Acceptance factors to extrapolate from the fiducial phase space to the total phase space, in bins of the transverse momentum of the leading jet, in the gamma gamma channel.

Acceptance for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Acceptance for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Detector efficiency for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR1 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR1 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR1 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR1 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR1 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR1 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR2 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR2 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR2 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR2 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR2 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR2 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR3 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR3 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR3 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR3 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR3 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR3 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR4 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR4 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR4 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR4 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR4 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR4 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR5 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR5 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR5 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR5 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR5 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

SR5 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for the best expected SR in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR1 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR1 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR1 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR2 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR2 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR2 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR3 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR3 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR3 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR4 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR4 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR4 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR5 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR5 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR5 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for the best expected SR in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for the best expected SR in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Minimum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, assuming no sensitivity for other decay possibilities, in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Minimum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, assuming no sensitivity for other decay possibilities, in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Minimum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, assuming no sensitivity for other decay possibilities, in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

The signal region with the best expected CLS value for each signal in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

The signal region with the best expected CLS value for each signal in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

The signal region with the best expected CLS value for each signal in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR1. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR1. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR1. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR2. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR2. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR2. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR3. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR3. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR3. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR4. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR4. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR4. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR5. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR5. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR5. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (450,425)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR1.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (450,425)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR1.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (450,425)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR1.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,420)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR2.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,420)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR2.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,420)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR2.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR3.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR3.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR3.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (600,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR4.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (600,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR4.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (600,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR4.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (900,1)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR5.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (900,1)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR5.

Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (900,1)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR5.

Summary of the relative uncertainties in the measured fiducial cross section $\sigma^{\mathrm{fid}}_{W^\pm Z j j-EW}$ . The uncertainties are reported as percentages.

Numbers of observed and expected events in the $W^{\pm}Zjj$ signal region and in the three control regions, after the fit. The expected number of $WZjj-EW$ events from $SHERPA$ and the estimated number of background events from the other processes are shown. The sum of the background containing misidentified leptons is labelled "Misid. leptons". The total correlated post-fit uncertainties are quoted.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity. The last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Measured $W^{pm}Zjj$ differential cross-section in the VBS fiducial phase space. 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, pileup and luminosity. the last bin is a cross section for all events above the lower end of the bin.

Correlation matrix for the unfolded fiducial cross-section.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $ee$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $e^{\pm}e^{\mp}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channel.

The measured fiducial cross sections are corrected to the dressed level. The ratio of $C_{WZ}^{\textrm{dressed}}/C_{WZ}^{\textrm{Born}}$ factors presented in this table can be used to correct fiducial integrated cross sections from dressed to Born level.

Ratio of fiducial cross sections measured for $W^{+} Z$ and $W^{-} Z$ production.

Cross section extrapolated to total phase space and all W and Z boson decays. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding theory and luminosity uncertainties, the second is the theory uncertainty and the third is the luminosity uncertainty.

The total cross section is measured at dressed level and can also be corrected to Born level use this acceptance correction factor.

Measured fiducial cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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 cross section for a single leptonic decay channel $\ell'^\pm \nu \ell^+ \ell'^-$ of the $W 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.

5: Measured helicity fractions in the fiducial phase space with Born level leptons, for $W^-$, $W^+Z$ and $W^{\pm}Z$ events. The total uncertainties on the measurements are reported.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $2\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution for $R_{\textrm{ISR}}$ in SR$2\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution for $H_{3,1}^{\textrm{PP}}$ in SR$3\ell$_Low is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution of $p_{\textrm{T}}^{\ell_{1}}$ in SR$3\ell$_Low is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T\ ISR}}^{~\textrm{CM}}$ in SR$3\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Distributions of kinematic variables in the signal regions for the $3\ell$ channels after applying all selection requirements. The histograms show the post-fit background predictions. The last bin includes the overflow. The distribution of $R_{\textrm{ISR}}$ in SR$3\ell$_ISR is plotted. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model, normalized to the NLO+NLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, is also shown for comparison.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the 2$\ell$ search, assuming 100\% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the 2$\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the the $3\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the the $3\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the statistical combination of the $2\ell$ and 3$\ell$ search channels, assuming 100\% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the masses of C1/N2 and N1 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the statistical combination of the $2\ell$ and 3$\ell$ search channels, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and LSP.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_High. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_High.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_High.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Int. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Int.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Int.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Low. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Low.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_Low.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_ISR. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_ISR.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR2L_ISR.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_High. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_High.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_High.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Int. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Int.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Int.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Low. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Low.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_Low.

Signal region acceptance for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_ISR. The acceptance is with respect to all possible $W/Z$ decays.

Signal region efficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_ISR.

Signal region acceptanceXefficiency for chargino-neutralino production in SR3L_ISR.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross-section of C1/N2 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the 2$\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and N1.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross-section of C1/N2 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the 3$\ell$ search, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and N1.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross-section of C1/N2 from the analysis of 36.1fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data obtained from the statistical combination of 2 and 3$\ell$ searches, assuming 100% branching ratio of the sparticles to decay to SM $W/Z$ bosons and N1.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_High and m[C1/N2,N1] = [500,0] GeV. 5000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_Int and m[C1/N2,N1] = [400,200] GeV. 10000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_Low and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR2L_ISR and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_High and m[C1/N2,N1] = [500,0] GeV. 5000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_Int and m[C1/N2,N1] = [400,200] GeV. 10000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_Low and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Signal cutflow for SR3L_ISR and m[C1/N2,N1] = [200,100] GeV. 20000 events were generated for this point. The unweighted number of events correspond to the number of selected MC events in the produced sample, while the weighted yield is normalized to the luminosity of the data.

Expected and observed upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60, where predictions are available from both scenarios. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The limits are based on the combination of the $\ell+$jets and $\ell\ell$ final states. The production cross-section of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$, as well as the branching ratios of the $H$, are fixed to their SM values at each point in the plane. Uncertainties on the predicted $H^{+}$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

Expected and observed lower limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{+}}$ in the hMSSM scenario of the MSSM. Limits are shown for $\tan\beta$ values in the range of 0.5-60, where predictions are available from both scenarios. The bands surrounding the expected limits show the 68% and 95% confidence intervals. The limits are based on the combination of the $\ell+$jets and $\ell\ell$ final states. The production cross-section of $t\bar{t}H$ and $tH$, as well as the branching ratios of the $H$, are fixed to their SM values at each point in the plane. Uncertainties on the predicted $H^{+}$ cross-sections or branching ratios are not considered.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the merged event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the resolved event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the resolved event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-W/Z signal region with the resolved event topology after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 350 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 350 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 90 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 350 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

Expected exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the dark matter mediator particles (m_chi, m_Zp) for the combined mono-W and mono-Z search in the frame of the simplified model with the Dirac DM particles and couplings g_SM = 0.25 and g_DM = 1.

Observed exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the dark matter mediator particles (m_chi, m_Zp) for the combined mono-W and mono-Z search in the frame of the simplified model with the Dirac DM particles and couplings g_SM = 0.25 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the cross section as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameters g_SM = 0.1 and g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark fermion model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the light dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

Exclusion contours at 95% C.L. of the product of the couplings g_SM g_DM as a function of Z' mass (mZp), for the mono-Z' dark Higgs model, with the heavy dark sector scenario, with parameter g_DM = 1.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 80 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, low purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, high purity, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the merged event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 100 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 110 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 110 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 110 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 120 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 120 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 120 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 130 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 130 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 130 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 140 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 140 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 140 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 150 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 150 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 150 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 160 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 160 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 160 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 170 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 170 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 170 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 180 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 180 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 180 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 190 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 190 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 190 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 200 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 200 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 200 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 250 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 250 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 250 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 300 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 300 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 300 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 400 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 400 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 400 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 450 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 450 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 450 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 500 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 0b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 500 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 1b-tagged jet, event category.

The observed and expected MET distributions with 36.1fb-1 of data with sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in the mono-Z' signal region with the resolved event topology for a Z' mass of 500 GeV after the profile-likelihood fit. This is shown for the 2b-tagged jet, event category.

Distribution of the reconstructed invariant mass of the $W^\prime$ boson candidate in the 4-jet 2-tag VR$_{t\bar{t}}$ electron validation region. Background templates are fit to data in each VR using the same statistical method as for the signal region except that the normalizations of $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds are constrained to the post-fit rates obtained in the signal region. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Distribution of the reconstructed invariant mass of the $W^\prime$ boson candidate in the 4-jet 2-tag VR$_{t\bar{t}}$ muon validation region. Background templates are fit to data in each VR using the same statistical method as for the signal region except that the normalizations of $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds are constrained to the post-fit rates obtained in the signal region. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 1-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 1-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 2-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 2-jet 2-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 1-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 1-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 2-tag signal region, for electron channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed mass of the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ boson candidate in the 3-jet 2-tag signal region, for muon channel. Uncertainties include all the systematic and statistical uncertainties.

Upper limits at the 95% CL on the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ production cross section times branching fraction as a function of resonance mass, assuming $g^\prime/g=1$.

Observed and expected 95% CL limit on the ratio $g^\prime/g$, as a function of resonance mass, for right-handed $W^\prime$ coupling. The impact of the increased $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ width for coupling values of $g'/g>1$ on the acceptance and on kinematical distributions is taken into account.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the $W^\prime_{\textrm{R}}$ production cross section times branching fraction as a function of resonance mass for the combination of semileptonic and hadronic [Phys. Lett. B 781 (2018) 327] $W^\prime \rightarrow t\bar{b}$ searches, assuming $g^\prime/g=1$. The hadronic search covers a mass range between 1.0 and 5.0TeV.