The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 40 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 45 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 50 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 55 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 60 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 65 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 70 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 75 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 80 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 85 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 90 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 95 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of X$\to\phi\phi\to$4b, with $m_\phi$ = 100 GeV. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_XN/f$.

Data event yields and predicted signal and background yields (including subdominant $t\bar{t}$) in bins of dijet and average jet mass.

The W' boson 95% CL limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction. The expected and observed limits are shown for the high VLQ mass range.

The W' boson 95% CL limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction. The expected and observed limits are shown for the low VLQ mass range.

Expected 95% CL limits for generalized hypotheses varying the fraction of tB (F(VLQ=B)) and bT (F(VLQ=T)) from the W′ decay

Expected 95% CL limits for generalized hypotheses varying the VLQ branching fraction to qH and qZ

Observed 95% CL limits for generalized hypotheses varying the fraction of tB (F(VLQ=B)) and bT (F(VLQ=T)) from the W′ decay

Observed 95% CL limits for generalized hypotheses varying the VLQ branching fraction to qH and qZ

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-0.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-2.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-0 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-2 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $2b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $3b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $4b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-0 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-2 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The theoretical prediction for the bulk RS model with $k/\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}} = 1$ (solid red line) is shown; the decrease below 350 GeV is due to a sharp reduction in the $G^{*}_{\text{KK}} \rightarrow HH$ branching ratio. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.

Expected $+ 1$ s.d. lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.

Expected - 1 s.d. lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.

Observed lower limit contour on the $m_{\mathrm{W}_{\mathrm{KK}}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{R}}$ plane after combinign with an analysis of the all-hadronic final state.

Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR1.

Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR2.

Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR3.

Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR5.

Post-fit distributions of the reconstructed $\ell\nu$+jets system ($m_{\mathrm{j}\ell\nu}$, $m_{\mathrm{jj}\ell\nu}$) in data and simulation for SR6.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Ht$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Cutflow table listing the number of events passing each criterion for a $T$-quark hypothesis with a mass of 1.6 TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$. The initial signal event yield is the predicted number of $T$-quark events inclusive in the Higgs-boson and top-quark decays for 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Wb$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Measured inclusive fiducial $tt\gamma$ production cross section in the dilepton final state for the different dilepton-flavour channels and combined.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Absolute differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$. The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Normalized differential $tt\gamma$ production cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ . The values provided in the table are not divided by the bin width.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\eta |(\gamma)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{1})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta R(\gamma, \ell_{2})$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\gamma, b)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta(\ell\ell)|$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $\Delta \phi(\ell\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell\ell) $.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(\ell_{1})+p_{T}(\ell_{2})$ .

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of min $\Delta R(\ell, j)$.

Correlation matrix of the systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of $p_{T}(j_{1})$ .

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is fixed to zero in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c^{I}_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon pT distribution from the dilepton analysis. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value for the one-dimensional scans of the Wilson coefficient $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses. The value of $c_{tZ}$ is profiled in the fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton measurement.

Negative log-likelihood difference from the best-fit value as a function of Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$ from the interpretation of the dilepton and lepton+jets measurements combined.

One-dimensional 68 and 95% CL intervals obtained for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$, using the photon $p_{T}$ distribution from the dilepton analysis, or the combination of photon pT distributions from the dilepton and lepton+jets analyses.

Comparison of observed $95\%$ CL intervals for the Wilson coefficients $c_{tZ}$ and $c^{I}_{tZ}$. Results are shown from a CMS ttZ measurement [JHEP 03 (2020) 056], from a CMS ttZ & tZq interpretation [arXiv:2107.13896], from a CMS ttG (lepton+jets) measurement [arXiv:2107.01508], from this measurement, and from a global fit by J. Ellis et al. [JHEP 04 (2021) 279].

Number of predicted signal events in the $\mu\mu X$ final states, for several benchmark signal hypotheses for Majorana HNL. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{Ne}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Majorana HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{N\mu}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Majorana HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{Ne}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Dirac HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

The 95% CL limits on $|V_{N\mu}|^2$ as a function of the HNL mass for a Dirac HNL. Values of $-1$ indicate that no limit is available for the mass point.

Covariance matrix for the background prediction in the signal region bins for the $eeX$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Covariance matrix for the background prediction in the signal region bins for the $\mu\mu X$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Correlation matrix for the background prediction the signal region bins for the $eeX$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Correlation matrix for the background prediction the signal region bins for the $\mu\mu X$ final states. The bin labels specify the channel, the $m(\ell_2,\ell_3)$ bin, and the $\Delta_{\mathrm{2D}}$ bin.

Mean lifetime and production cross section for HNLs of Majorana nature, assuming the decay to three charged leptons and coupling to only electrons or muons, as evaluated from simulated event samples.

Theory cross sections vs m($\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$) for SMS model TChiHH-G, $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1, \widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ NLSPs only.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the TChiHH signal model as a function of the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses. Relative to Fig. 13, the binning of the table is adjusted to align with the model points that were sampled. In addition, a small correction has been applied that affects the cross section upper limits for points with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = 1$ GeV. For that row of points in the figure, the small region of model phase space reached by both the resolved and boosted selections was inadvertently double counted in computing the signal contribution to the predicted yield.

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Cross section, 95% CL upper limit plus theory vs m($\widetilde{g}$) for SMS model T5HH.

Pre-fit background covariance matrix $\sigma_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Pre-fit background correlation matrix $\rho_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Significance vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH.

Significance vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $275, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $50) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $450, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $200) for SMS model TChiHH.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1)$ for SMS model TChiHH-G. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and no constraint on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})$.

Efficiency vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Signal and control region populations for the resolved signature.

Signal and control region populations for the boosted signature.

Cut flow table for the resolved topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal models as successive selections are applied.

Cut flow table for the boosted topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal model points as successive selections are applied. Here the hadronic baseline is defined by $N_{\mathrm{jet}}\geq$2, \ptmiss$>$300 GeV, $\Delta\phi$ cuts, and the isolated lepton and track vetoes.

Product of efficiency and acceptance of the event selection for T signal events as a function of the particle mass $m_\mathrm{T}$ and width $\Gamma$ for the different hypotheses considered.

Product of efficiency and acceptance of the event selection for T signal events as a function of the particle mass $m_\mathrm{T}$ and width $\Gamma$ for the different hypotheses considered.

Product of efficiency and acceptance of the event selection for T signal events as a function of the particle mass $m_\mathrm{T}$ and width $\Gamma$ for the different hypotheses considered.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved validation region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds are after the data-driven extraction is performed.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the partially merged region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with 0 forward jets. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Distribution of the transverse mass $M_T$ reconstructed from the top quark and the missing transverse energy in the resolved region with at least 1 forward jet. Data are compared to backgrounds obtained post-fit.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.01 $ imes$ its mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.1 $ imes$ its mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.2 $ imes$ its mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a hadronic top quark and a Z boson to neutrinos as a function of the T mass, for a T with a width of 0.3 $ imes$ its mass.

Model independent observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a T decaying to a top quark and a Z boson as a function of the T mass and width.

Singlet model 95% CL excluded values of the product of the cross section and branching fraction for a T decaying to a top quark and a Z boson.