The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Efficiency in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta$ M(N2,N1) $= 130$ GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Observed upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Cutflows for the bechmarl signal point M(Sbottom) = 800 GeV, M(N2) = 180 GeV. Weighted event yields are reported starting with the "Preselection" line, normalized to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{−1}$.

Comparison of the expected and observed event yields in the signal regions. The top-quark and Z(mumu) background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The other contribution includes all the backgrounds not explicitly listed in the legend (V+jets except Z(mumu)+jets, di-/triboson, multijet). The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background. The contributions from three signal models to the signal regions are also displayed, where the masses M(Sbottom) and M(N2) are given in GeV in the legend. The lower panel shows the significance of the deviation of the observed yield from the expected background yield.

Dominant systematic uncertainties in the background prediction for the signal regions after the fit to the control regions. “Other” includes the uncertainties arising from muons, jet-vertex tagging, modeling of pile-up, the $E_{T}^{miss}$ computation, multijet background, and luminosity. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty.

Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Cutflow for the SRL selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 250 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRM selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1050 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRH selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1950 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x&ndash;y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|&eta;|&lt;1.4) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x&ndash;y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|&eta;|&lt;1.4) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

Distribution of the low-E_T per-event BDT in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Distribution of the high-E_T per-event BDT outputs in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the high-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the low-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final high-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B&middot; N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final low-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B&middot; N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

95% CL expected and observed limits on the BR of SM Higgs bosons to pairs of neutral LLPs (B_{H&rarr; ss}), showing the &plusmn; 1 &sigma; (green) and &plusmn; 2 &sigma; (yellow) expected limit bands, as well as a comparison with the results from previous ATLAS searches [36,78]. The cross-section for SM Higgs boson gluon--gluon fusion production is assumed to be 48.6 pb.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 &le; |&eta;| &lt; 2.5) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 &le; |&eta;| &lt; 2.5) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 200 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 400 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the high-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in decay position in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, &infin;] m for LLPs with |&eta;| &lt; 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, &infin; ] m for LLPs with |&eta;|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or &tau; in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) &times; (number of p_T bins &times; number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the high-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.5%, the results are typically accurate to around 25%, but below this the efficiency can be overestimated and therefore should not be used for re-interpration.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the low-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, &infin;] m for LLPs with |&eta;| &lt; 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, &infin; ] m for LLPs with |&eta;|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or &tau; in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) &times; (number of p_T bins &times; number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the low-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.15%, the results are typically accurate to around 33%, and below this the efficiency is typically accurate up to a factor of 3.

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 figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.

Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

The upper panel shows the observed number of events in each of the binned SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after applying the efficiency correction method to compute the number of expected FSB events. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g. $t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. The distributions of two signal points with mass splittings $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 30$ GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 50$ GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

Cutflow table for the chargino signal sample with $m\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0=(125,25)$ GeV, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in (0.77,1]$ and SR-DF BDT-signal$\in (0.81,1]$ regions. The yields include the process cross-section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 170000 events were generated for the sample.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.

The upper panel shows the observed number of events in the SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after the background fit in the CRs. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g.$t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].

Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in merged two-prong signal region.

Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in resolved two-prong signal region.

Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in resolved two-prong signal region.

The obtained p-value from comparing data to background estimation across all bins, defined by windows in the X and Y particle masses, in the anomaly signal region.

The obtained p-value from comparing data to background estimation across all bins, defined by windows in the X and Y particle masses, in the anomaly signal region.

The expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The observed 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The observed 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p_T-leading TAR jet passes the m_Wcand and D₂^&beta;=1 requirements, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=500 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Probability of finding a W_had candidate reconstructed as a pair of R=0.4 PFlow jets, as a function of m_s. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m_Z'=2100 GeV, with the preselections applied that do not pass the requirements of the merged category.

Observed exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-1&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected+2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Expected-2&sigma; exclusion contour at 95&#37; C.L. for the dark Higgs model in the (m_Z', m_s) plane for g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1, m_&chi;=200 GeV, and sin&theta;=0.01.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=0.5 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=1.7 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Observed upper limits at 95&#37; C.L. on &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) for m_Z'=2.1 TeV as a function of m_s. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the &sigma;(pp &rarr; s &chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&pm; W^&mp;) process for m_Z'=2.1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.

Data overlaid on SM background yields stacked in each SR and CR category after the fit to data ('Post-fit'). The yields in the SR are broken down into their contributions to the individual bins. The maximum-likelihood estimators are set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs.

Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to data. The uncertainties are quantified in terms of their contribution to the fitted signal uncertainty that is expressed relative to the theory prediction. Three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01 and m_&chi;=200 GeV are considered, which are indicated using the (m_Z', m_s) format in units of GeV in the table columns.

Cumulative efficiencies in the merged category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Cumulative efficiencies in the resolved category for three representative dark Higgs signal scenarios with g_q=0.25, g_&chi;=1.0, sin&theta;=0.01, m_Z' = 1 TeV, and m_&chi;=200 GeV considering s&rarr;W(&ell;&nu;)W(qq) decays only.

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={300, 350, 400, 500, 750} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={1000, 1700} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Theoretical cross section for &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) for each of the dark Higgs signal points at m_Z′ ={2100, 2500, 2900, 3300} GeV, with g_q = 0.25, g<sub>&chi; = 1.0, sin&theta; = 0.01, m_Z′ = 1 TeV , and m_&chi; = 200 GeV. Also shown are experimentally excluded cross sections of &sigma;(pp &rarr; s&chi;&chi;) &times; B(s &rarr; W^&plusmn;W^&#8723;) (Obs.) together with the expectations (Exp.) varied up and down by one standard deviation (&plusmn;1&sigma;).

Pre-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except for the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor which is not defined pre-fit. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except for the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor which is not defined pre-fit. The last bin includes the overflow.

Pre-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except for the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor which is not defined pre-fit. The last bin includes the overflow.

Comparison of predicted and observed event yields in each of the control and signal regions in the dilepton channel after the fit to the data. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison of predicted and observed event yields in each of the control and signal regions in the single-lepton channels after the fit to the data. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $120\le p_T^H<200$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $200\le p_T^H<300$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 300$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $120\le p_T^H<200$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $200\le p_T^H<300$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV (yield only). The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton boosted SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton boosted SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for ${\Delta R^{{avg}}_{bb}}$ after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton $CR^{5j}_{{\geq}4b\ lo}$ control region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Comparison between data and prediction for ${\Delta R^{{avg}}_{bb}}$ after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton $CR^{5j}_{{\geq}4b\ hi}$ control region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Post-fit yields of signal ($S$) and total background ($B$) as a function of $\log (S/B)$, compared with data. Final-discriminant bins in all dilepton and single-lepton analysis regions are combined into bins of $\log (S/B)$, with the signal normalised to the SM prediction used for the computation of $\log (S/B)$. The signal is then shown normalised to the best-fit value and the SM prediction. The lower frame reports the ratio of data to background, and this is compared with the expected ${t\bar {t}H}$-signal-plus-background yield divided by the background-only yield for the best-fit signal strength (solid red line) and the SM prediction (dashed orange line).

Comparison between data and prediction for the reconstruction BDT score for the Higgs boson candidate identified using Higgs boson information, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the average $\Delta \eta $ between $b$-tagged jets, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the likelihood discriminant, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the average $\Delta R$ for all possible combinations of $b$-tagged jet pairs, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the DNN $P(H)$ output for the Higgs boson candidate after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the DNN $P(H)$ output for the Higgs boson candidate after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass for the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass for the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass for the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Fitted values of the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal strength parameter in the individual channels and in the inclusive signal-strength measurement.

Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the fit. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.

Pre-fit distribution of the number of jets in the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the Standard Model expectation. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor that is not defined pre-fit.

Pre-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the Standard Model expectation. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor that is not defined pre-fit.

Pre-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the Standard Model expectation. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor that is not defined pre-fit.

Post-fit distribution of the number of jets in the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Post-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Post-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The last bin includes the overflow.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The last bin includes the overflow.

Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The last bin includes the overflow.

Signal-strength measurements in the individual STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins, as well as the inclusive signal strength.

95% CL simplified template cross-section upper limits in the individual STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins, as well as the inclusive limit. The observed limits are shown (solid black lines), together with the expected limits both in the background-only hypothesis (dotted black lines) and in the SM hypothesis (dotted red lines). In the case of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also shown. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the theory uncertainty in the fiducial cross-section prediction in each bin.

The ratios $S/B$ (black solid line, referring to the vertical axis on the left) and $S/\sqrt{B}$ (red dashed line, referring to the vertical axis on the right) for each category in the inclusive analysis in the dilepton channel (left) and in the single-lepton channels (right), where $S$ ($B$) is the number of selected signal (background) events predicted by the simulation and normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ .

Comparison between data and prediction for the $\Delta R$ between the Higgs candidate and the ${t\bar {t}}$ candidate system, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the number of $b$-tagged jet pairs with an invariant mass within 30 GeV of 125 GeV, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the reconstruction BDT score for the Higgs boson candidate identified using Higgs boson information, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the $\Delta R$ between the two highest ${p_{{T}}}$ $b$-tagged jets, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.

Comparison between data and prediction for the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of jets from Higgs, hadronic top and leptonic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Comparison between data and prediction for the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of jets from Higgs, hadronic top and leptonic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Comparison between data and prediction for the hadronic top candidate invariant mass, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Comparison between data and prediction for the hadronic top candidate invariant mass, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Comparison between data and prediction for the fraction of the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of all jets not associated to the Higgs or hadronic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Comparison between data and prediction for the fraction of the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of all jets not associated to the Higgs or hadronic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).

Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $0\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<120$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.

Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $120\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<200$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.

Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $200\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<300$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.

Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $300\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<450$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.

Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}\ge 450$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.

95% confidence level upper limits on signal-strength measurements in the individual STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins, as well as the inclusive signal-strength limit, after the fit used to extract multiple signal-strength parameters. The observed limits are shown (solid black lines), together with the expected limits both in the background-only hypothesis (dotted black lines) and in the SM hypothesis (dotted red lines). In the case of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also shown.

Post-fit correlation matrix (in percentages) between the $\mu $ values obtained in the STXS bins.

Performance of the Higgs boson reconstruction algorithms. For each row of `truth' ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$, the matrix shows (in percentages) the fraction of Higgs boson candidates which are truth-matched to ${b\bar {b}}$ decays, with reconstructed $p_T^H$ in the various bins of the dilepton (left), single lepton resolved (middle) and boosted (right) channels.

Pre-fit event yields in the dilepton signal regions and control regions. All uncertainties are included except the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ uncertainty that is not defined pre-fit. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the pre-fit yield values correspond to the theoretical prediction and corresponding uncertainties. `Other sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tW$, $tWZ$, $tZq$, $Z+$ jets and diboson events.

Post-fit event yields in the dilepton signal regions and control regions, after the inclusive fit in all channels. All uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the post-fit yield and uncertainties correspond to those in the inclusive signal-strength measurement. `Other sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tW$, $tWZ$, $tZq$, $Z+$ jets and diboson events.

Pre-fit event yields in the single-lepton resolved and boosted signal regions and control regions. All uncertainties are included except the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ uncertainty that is not defined pre-fit. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the pre-fit yield values correspond to the theoretical prediction and corresponding uncertainties. `Other top sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tWZ$ and $tZq$ events.

Post-fit event yields in the single-lepton resolved and boosted signal regions and control regions, after the inclusive fit in all channels. All uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the post-fit yield and uncertainties correspond to those in the inclusive signal-strength measurement. `Other top sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tWZ$ and $tZq$ events.

Breakdown of the contributions to the uncertainties in $\mu$. The contributions from the different sources of uncertainty are evaluated after the fit. The $\Delta \mu $ values are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed a certain set of nuisance parameters corresponding to a group of systematic uncertainties, and then evaluating $(\Delta \mu)^2$ by subtracting the resulting squared uncertainty of $\mu $ from its squared uncertainty found in the full fit. The same procedure is followed when quoting the effect of the ${t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b}$ normalisation. The total uncertainty is different from the sum in quadrature of the different components due to correlations between nuisance parameters existing in the fit.

Fraction (in percentages) of signal events, after SR and CR selections, originating from $b\bar {b}$, $WW$ and other remaining Higgs boson decay modes in the dilepton channel.

Fraction (in percentages) of signal events, after SR and CR selections, originating from $b\bar {b}$, $WW$ and other remaining Higgs boson decay modes in the single-lepton channels.

Predicted SM ${t\bar {t}H}$ cross-section in each of the five STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins and signal acceptance times efficiency (including all event selection criteria) in each STXS bin as well as for the inclusive ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ range.

Number of expected signal events before the fit, after each selection requirement applied to enter the dilepton channel $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ region. All ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal events are included, regardless of the $H$ or ${t\bar {t}H}$ decay mode. All object corrections are applied, except for the initial number of events which is calculated using the NLO QCD+EW theoretical prediction. All quoted numbers are rounded to unity. More details on the selection criteria can be found in the text.

Number of expected signal events before the fit, after each selection requirement applied to enter the single-lepton channel resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ region. All ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal events are included, regardless of the $H$ or ${t\bar {t}H}$ decay mode. All object corrections are applied, except for the initial number of events which is calculated using the NLO QCD+EW theoretical prediction. All quoted numbers are rounded to unity. More details on the selection criteria can be found in the text.

Number of expected signal events before the fit, after each selection requirement applied to enter the single-lepton channel boosted $SR_{boosted}$ region. All ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal events are included, regardless of the $H$ or ${t\bar {t}H}$ decay mode. All object corrections are applied, except for the initial number of events which is calculated using the NLO QCD+EW theoretical prediction. All quoted numbers are rounded to unity. More details on the selection criteria can be found in the text.

Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.

The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.

Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.

Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].