Distribution of the three leading leptons flavour in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Efficiency, acceptance, and proportion of events with leptonic tau decays in WZ production

WZ fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ total cross section extrapolated from the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

W$^{+}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

W$^{-}$Z fiducial cross section in the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

WZ charge asymmetry ratio measured on each of the four flavour exclusive and the flavour inclusive channels

Distribution of the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the W polarization fit

Distribution of the cosine of the Z polarization angle in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the Z polarization fit

Best fits to the W and Z polarization fractions

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^W$-$f_{L}^W-f_R^W$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $f_O^Z$-$f_{L}^Z-f_R^Z$ plane

Distribution of the invariant mass of the WZ system in the SR-WZ with uncertainties evaluated after the inclusive cross section fit

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering both the SM interferences and purely BSM (order $\Lambda^{-2}$ and $\Lambda^{-4}$) terms

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{w}$-$c_{b}$ plane

2D confidence regions at the 68, 95, and 99% CL in the $c_{www}$-$c_{w}$ plane

Best fit values and one dimensional confidence regions in several EFT coefficients obtained from the EFT fit considering only the SM-EFT interference (order $\Lambda^{-2}$) terms

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{b}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $c_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{www}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Evolution of the best fit and expected and observed 95% CI for the $\tilde{c}_{w}$ parameter as a function of the cutoff scale

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the Z boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the Z boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the leading jet

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the leading jet obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the jet multiplicity

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the jet multiplicity

Response matrix for the jet multiplicity obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the invariant mass of the WZ system

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the invariant mass of the WZ system

Response matrix for the invariant mass of the WZ system obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson

Response matrix for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the transverse momentum of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the $p_{T}$ of the lepton associated to the W boson, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge

Response matrix for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the W polarization angle times total lepton charge, W$^{-}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle

Response matrix for the cosine of the Z polarization angle obtained with POWHEG

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{+}$Z only

Differential cross section with respect to the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Correlation matrix for the unfolded results obtained using NNLO bias, area con-straint, and no additional regularization for the cosine of the Z polarization angle, W$^{-}$Z only

Distribution of $m_{T}(W)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $m(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Distribution of $\Delta R(j,\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for electrons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured $m_{T}(W)$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $N_{jet}=2$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for muons.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the e channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(l,\gamma)$) in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$, $N_{b jet}=0$ selection for the $\mu$ channel.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the control regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

Predicted and observed yields in the signal regions in the $N_{jet}= 3$ and $\geq 4$ seletions using the post-fit values of the nuisance parameters.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

The measured inclusive ttgamma cross section in the fiducial phase space compared to the prediction from simulation using Madgraph_aMC@NLO at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

Summary of the measured cross section ratios with respect to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the electron channel, muon channel and the combined single lepton measurement.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $p_{T}(\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $|\eta(\gamma)|$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

The unfolded differential cross sections for $\Delta R(l,\gamma)$ and the comparison to simulations.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

Summary of the one-dimensional intervals at 68 and 95% CL.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR3 signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the electron channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

The observed and predicted post-fit yields for the combined Run 2 data set in the SR4p signal region for the muon channel.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional profiled scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the one-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Negative log-likelihood ratio values with respect to the best fit value of the two-dimensional scan for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$.

Pre-fit distribution of the DNN output 2L-$e\mu$-6j2b, this distribution is not used in the fit.

Pre-fit distribution of jet multiplicity in CR-$t\bar{t}$-e region.

Pre-fit distribution of loose lepton transverse momentum in CR-$t\bar{t}$-$\mu$ region.

Pre-fit distribution of the transverse mass of the trailing lepton and the missing transverse momentum in CR-Z-e region.

Post-fit distribution of jet multiplicity in CR-$t\bar{t}$-e region

Post-fit distribution of loose lepton transverse momentum in CR-$t\bar{t}$-$\mu$ region

Post-fit distribution of the transverse mass of the trailing lepton and the missing transverse momentum in CR-Z-e region

Post-fit distribution of NN output in SR-2L-5j2b region.

Post-fit distribution of NN output in SR-2L-6j1b region.

Post-fit distribution of NN output in SR-2L-6j2b region.

Post-fit distribution of DNN-$t\bar{t}Z$ output in 3L-SR-ttZ region.

Post-fit distribution of DNN-$t\bar{t}Z$ outputt in 3L-SR-tZq region.

Post fit events yields in 3L-SR-WZ region.

Post-fit distribution of NN output in 4L-SR-SF region.

Post-fit distribution of NN output in 4L-SR-DF region.

Post-fit distribution of b-tagger output for leading b-jet in 4L-CR-ZZ region.

Measured values of the background normalizations obtained from the combined fit. The uncertainties include statistical and systematic sources.

Measured $\sigma_{t\bar{t}\text{Z}}$ cross sections obtained from the fits in the different lepton channels. The uncertainties include statistical and systematic sources.

Grouped impact of systematic uncertainties in the combined inclusive fit to data.

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 8 top-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 8 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 8 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 8 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 17 top-left and Figure 11 top-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 17 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 17 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 17 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 18 top-left and Figure 11 top-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 18 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 18 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 18 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 19 top-left and Figure 11 bottom-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 19, top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 19, bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 19, bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 20 top-left and Figure 11 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 20, top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 20, bottom-left)

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 20, bottom-right)

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 21 top-left and Figure 12 top-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 21, top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 21, bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 21, top-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 22 top-left and Figure 12 bottom-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 22, top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 22, bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 22, bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 23 top-left and Figure 12 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 23, top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 23, bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 23, bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 24 top-left and Figure 12 top-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 24, top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at particle-level (Figure 24, bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ in the combination of $3\ell$ and $4\ell$ channels at parton-level (Figure 24, bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 25 top-left and Figure 9 top-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 25 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 25 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 25 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 26 top-left and Figure 10 bottom-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 26 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 26 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 26 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 27 top-left and Figure 10 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 27 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 27 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 27 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 28 top-left and Figure 10 top-left).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 28 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 28 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level (Figure 28 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 29 left and Figure 9 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level (Figure 29 right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level (Figure 30 top-left and Figure 9 top-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the tetralepton channel at parton-level (Figure 30 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level (Figure 30 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the tetralepton channel at parton-level (Figure 30 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level (Figure 31 top-left and Figure 10 top-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the tetralepton channel at parton-level (Figure 31 top-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level (Figure 31 bottom-left).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ in the tetralepton channel at parton-level (Figure 31 bottom-right).

Unfolded absolute cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level (Figure 32 left and Figure 9 bottom-right).

Unfolded normalized cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level (Figure 32 right).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data in all regions used in inclusive cross section measurement. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data in all regions used in inclusive cross section measurement. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $m^{t\bar{t}}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $m^{t\bar{t}}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $N_{\text{jets}}$ in $3\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $N_{\text{jets}}$ in $3\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in $3\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in $3\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $y^{Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $y^{Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable cos $\theta^{*}_{Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable cos $\theta^{*}_{Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in $4\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in $4\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $N_{\text{jets}}$ in $4\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $N_{\text{jets}}$ in $4\ell$ channel. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $p^{Z}_{T}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $p^{Z}_{T}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (0-499) for data, variable $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Bootstrap replicas (500-999) for data, variable $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$. The used bootstrap method is described in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011 (https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011/).

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|y^{Z}$| variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable.

Parton-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|y^{Z}$| variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable.

Particle-level acceptance and selection efficiency histograms for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{ l}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $m^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $N_{\text{jets}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $p^{Z}_{T}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{Z}$| variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at particle-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at particle-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-ttZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-tZq.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-3L-WZ.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-DF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at parton-level in region SR-4L-SF.

Migration matrix for $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ variable at parton-level in region CR-4L-ZZ.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{\mathrm{top}}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(t\bar{t}, Z)|/\pi$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}Z}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}Z}|$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of cos $\theta_{Z}^{*}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(l_{t}^{+}, l_{\bar{t}}^{-})|/\pi$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta\Phi(Z, t_{lep})|/\pi$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|\Delta y(Z, t_{lep})|$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ at in the tetralepton channel particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ at in the tetralepton channel particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ at in the tetralepton channel parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the tetralepton channel at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $H_{\text{T}}^{\text{l}}$ in the trilepton channel at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the tetralepton channel at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $N_{\text{jets}}$ in the trilepton channel at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p^{Z}_{T}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\ell, non-Z}$ at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| at particle-level.

Covariance matrix for absolute cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| at parton-level.

Covariance matrix for normalized cross section as a function of $|y^{Z}$| at parton-level.

Ranking of nuisance parameters and background normalizations on signal strength for inclusive cross section measurement in combination of all channels

Correlation matrix of the input particle-level observables used in the EFT fit.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section of a narrow resonance and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for HPHP category. Theory curves corresponding to WED models with radion are superimposed.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section of a narrow resonance and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for HPLP category. Theory curves corresponding to WED models with radion are superimposed.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section of a narrow resonance and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for LPHP category. Theory curves corresponding to WED models with radion are superimposed.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for HPHP, HPLP and LPHP categories combined. The one standard deviation on the 95% CL upper limit is also provided.

Event yields for the same-sign dilepton mu+mu category.

Event yields for the same-sign dilepton mu+e category.

Event yields for the multilepton event categories Explanation of categories: C1 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C2 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 0 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, ST in 600 to 1000 C3 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 1000 to 1500 C4 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 0 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, ST in 1000 to 1500 C5 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, 0 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C6 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C7 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 0 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, ST in 600 to 1000 C8 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 0 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, ST in 1000 to 1500 C9 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 0 OSSF, 0 b-tag, ST in 600 to 1000 C10 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, 0 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 1000 to 1500 C11 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 1000 to 1500 C12 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, on-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C13 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 0 OSSF, 0 b-tag, ST in 1000 to 1500 C14 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C15 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 0 OSSF, 0 b-tag, ST in 600 to 1000 C16 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 1000 to 1500 C17 - 4 lepton, 1 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C18 - 4 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C19 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 0 OSSF, 0 b-tag, ST in 100 to 1500 C20 - 4 lepton, 0 tau, 2 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C21 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, on-Z, ST in 1000 to 1500 C22 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 300 to 600 C23 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 1500 to 2000 C24 - 3 lepton, 1 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C25 - 3 lepton, 0 tau, 1 OSSF, 0 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 600 to 1000 C26 - 4 lepton, 1 tau, 1 OSSF, >=1 b-tag, off-Z, ST in 300 to 600 Note: "n/a" signifies a category which does not contribute for a given signal hypothesis.

Event yields for the all-hadronic event categories.

Event yields for the opposite sign dilepton event categories.

Cross section limits for all branching ratio combinations.

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 $10^{2}$

Observed event yields and estimated backgrounds in the low- and high-mass control regions. The uncertainty in the background yield is the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Summary of the relative systematic uncertainties in heavy Majorana neutrino signal yields and the background from prompt same-sign leptons, both estimated from simulation. The relative systematic uncertainties assigned to the data-driven backgrounds for the misidentified lepton background and mismeasured charge background are also shown. The uncertainties are given for the low-mass selections.

Summary of the relative systematic uncertainties in heavy Majorana neutrino signal yields and the background from prompt same-sign leptons, both estimated from simulation. The relative systematic uncertainties assigned to the data-driven backgrounds for the misidentified lepton background and mismeasured charge background are also shown. The uncertainties are given for the high-mass selections.

Summary of contributions to the systematic uncertainty related to the prompt same-sign leptons background, misidentified lepton background, and mismeasured charge background on the total background uncertainty for the case of $m_{\rm N}$ = 100 and 500 GeV.

Observed event yields and estimated backgrounds after the application of all selection, except for the final optimization. The background predictions from prompt same-sign leptons (Prompt bkgd.), misidentified leptons (Misid. bkgd.), mismeasured charge (Charge mismeas. bkgd.) and the total background (Total bkgd.) are shown together withthe number of events observed in data. The uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic components, respectively.

Dielectron channel results after final optimization. The background predictions from prompt same-sign leptons, misidentified leptons, and mismeasured charge are shown along with the total background estimate and the number of events observed in data. The uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic components, respectively.

Electron-muon channel results after final optimization. The background predictions from prompt same-sign leptons and misidentified leptons are shown along with the total background estimate and the number of events observed in data. The uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic components, respectively.

Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta log L$ scan in data as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.

68% CL contour as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.

95\% CL contour as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.