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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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