Best fit values of $\sigma(gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$ relative to their SM prediction from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also shown.

Best fit values of $\sigma(gg\to H\to WW)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{WW}$ from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The values involving cross sections are given for $\sqrt{s}$=8 TeV, assuming the SM values for $\sigma_i(7 \mathrm{TeV})/\sigma_i(8 \mathrm{TeV})$. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also shown.

Best fit values of $\sigma(gg\to H\to WW)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{WW}$ relative to their SM prediction from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also shown.

Best fit values of $\kappa_{gZ}= \kappa_{g}\cdot\kappa_{Z} / \kappa_{H}$ and of the ratios of coupling modifiers, as defined in the most generic parameterisation described in the context of the $\kappa$ framework, from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The uncertainties in $\lambda_{tg}$ and $\lambda_{WZ}$, for which a negative solution is allowed, are calculated around the overall best fit value. The expected total uncertainties in the measurements are also shown. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Measured global signal strength $\mu$ and its total uncertainty, together with the breakdown of the uncertainty into its four components as defined in the text. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and separately for each experiment. The expected uncertainty, with its breakdown, is also shown.

Measured signal strengths $\mu$ and their total uncertainties for different Higgs boson production processes. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and separately for each experiment, for the combined $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also displayed. These results are obtained assuming that the Higgs boson branching fractions are the same as in the SM.

Measured signal strengths $\mu$ and their total uncertainties for different Higgs boson decay channels. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and separately for each experiment, for the combined $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also displayed. These results are obtained assuming that the Higgs boson production process cross sections at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV are the same as in the SM.

Results of the ten-parameter fit of $\mu_F^f = \mu_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}^f$ and $\mu_V^f = \mu_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}^f$ for each of the five decay channels. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, together with their measured and expected uncertainties. The measured results are also shown separately for each experiment.

Results of the six-parameter fit of the global ratio $\mu_V/\mu_F = \mu_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}/\mu_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$ together with $\mu_F^f$ for each of the five decay channels. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, together with their measured and expected uncertainties. The measured results are also shown separately for each experiment.

Fit results allowing BSM loop couplings, assuming that $|\kappa_{V}| \le$ 1, where $\kappa_{V}$ denotes $\kappa_{Z}$ or $\kappa_{W}$, and that $\mathrm{B_{BSM}} \ge$ 0. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. For the parameters with both signs allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ interval is shown on a second line. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Fit results allowing BSM loop couplings, assuming that there are no additional BSM contributions to the Higgs boson width, i.e. $\mathrm{B_{BSM}}=0$. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. For the parameters with both signs allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ interval is shown on a second line. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $\mathrm{B_{BSM}}$ = 0, the uncertainty is not indicated. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Fit results for the parameterisation assuming the absence of BSM particles in the loops ($\mathrm{B_{BSM}}$=0). The results with their measured and expected uncertainties are reported for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, together with the individual results from each experiment. For the parameters with both signs allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ CL interval is shown on a second line. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $|\kappa_\mu|$ = 0, the uncertainty is not indicated. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Summary of fit results for a parameterisation probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for up-type versus down-type fermions. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The parameter $\kappa_{uu}$ is positive definite since $\kappa_H$ is always assumed to be positive. For the parameter $\lambda_{du}$, for which both signs are allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ CL interval is shown on a second line. Negative values for the parameter $\lambda_{Vu}$ are excluded by more than 4$\sigma$.

Summary of fit results for a parameterisation probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for leptons versus quarks. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The parameter $\kappa_{qq}$ is positive definite since $\kappa_H$ is always assumed to be positive. For the parameter $\lambda_{lq}$, for which there is no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. Negative values for the parameter $\lambda_{Vq}$ are excluded by more than 4$\sigma$.

Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters, $\sigma_i\cdot\mathrm{B}^f$ for each specific channel $i\to H\to f$. Only 20 parameters are shown because the other three, corresponding to the $H\to ZZ$ decay channel for the $WH$, $ZH$, and $ttH$ production processes, are not measured with a meaningful precision.

Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with nine parameters, $\sigma(gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$.

Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with seven parameters, $\kappa_{gZ}=\kappa_{g}\cdot\kappa_{Z} / \kappa_{H}$ and the ratios of coupling modifiers.

Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS pre-fit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters, $\sigma_i\cdot\mathrm{B}^f$ for each specific channel $i\to H\to f$. Only 20 parameters are shown because the other three, corresponding to the $H\to ZZ$ decay channel for the $WH$, $ZH$, and $ttH$ production processes, are not measured with a meaningful precision.

Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS pre-fit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with nine parameters, $\sigma(gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$.

Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS pre-fit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with seven parameters, $\kappa_{gZ}=\kappa_{g}\cdot\kappa_{Z} / \kappa_{H}$ and the ratios of coupling modifiers.

ATLAS+CMS combined best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{g}$,$\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane.

ATLAS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{g}$,$\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane.

CMS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{g}$,$\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow WW$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow bb$ channel.

ATLAS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane.

CMS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow WW$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow bb$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow WW$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow bb$ channel.

The geometric acceptance multiplied by the efficiency of the $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV selection as a function of the proper decay length c$\tau$ for a scalar particle S with a mass of 40 GeV. The acceptance region for DT is defined by requiring the LLP to decay in the region with |z| < 661 cm and 380 cm < r < 736 cm. The acceptance region for CSC is defined by requiring the LLP decay in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 695.5 cm, and 661 cm < |z| < 1100 cm or in the region with $|\eta| < 2.4$, r < 270 cm, and 500 cm < |z| < 661 cm. Single CSC cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in CSC; Single DT cluster requires exactly one LLP to decay in DT; Double cluster requires both LLP to decay in CSC or DT. The denominator in this plot includes all generated events. The nominator includes events that pass the acceptance requirements above and $\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} >$ 200 GeV.

Distributions of the cluster time for signal, where S decaying to $d\bar{d}$ for a proper decay length c$\tau$ of 1 m and mass of 40 GeV, and for a background-enriched sample in data selected by inverting the $N_\text{hits}$ requirement.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m).

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for compared to the OOT background ($t_\text{clusters} < 12.5$ ns). The OOT background is representative of the overall background shape, because the background passing all the selections described above is dominated by pileup and underlying events.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ for single CSC clusters are shown for signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), compared to the shape of background in a selection in which the cluster is not matched to any RPC hit and passes all other selections. The background is dominated by clusters from noise and low-pT particles.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for CSC-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-DT category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{clusters}$ passing the $N_\text{hits}$ selection in the search region for DT-CSC category.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-CSC cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $N_\text{hits}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $N_\text{hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and D. The right-hand bin in the Nhits distribution includes overflow events.

The signal (assuming B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) = 1%, S $\rightarrow d\bar{d}$, and c$\tau$ = 1 m), background, and data distributions of $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ in the search region of the single-DT cluster category are shown. The $\Delta\phi(\it{p}_{T}^\text{miss} \text{,cluster)}$ distribution includes only events in bins A and B.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 3 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \tau^{+} \tau^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 55 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{+}K^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 1.5 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow K^{0}K^{0}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 0.4 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow \e^{+} \e^{-}$ decay mode.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) as functions of mass and c$\tau$ assuming S inherits all couplings from the Higgs boson evaluated at the LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for vector portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for gluon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 2 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for photon portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 4 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for higgs portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (2.5, 2.5)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 5 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 10 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 15 GeV LLP mass.

The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow \Psi\Psi$) for darkphoton portal, assuming $(\xi_{\omega}$, $\xi_{\Lambda}) = (1, 1)$ and 20 GeV LLP mass.

Post-fit distributon of BDT discriminants for $\rho_{tc}=1.0$ with $m_A$ = 350 GeV interfered with H.($m_A - m_H$ = 50 GeV)

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tu}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tc}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tu}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ for the g2HDM signal model using different coupling assumptions: $\rho_{tc}$ = 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tu}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV.

Expected exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

Observed exclusion as a function of $m_A$ and $\rho_{tc}$ for the g2HDM signal model with A–H interference assuming $m_A$ − $m_H$ = 50 GeV

The covariance matrix containing the experimental uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the model uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Correlations between bins in the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the statistical uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the experimental uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

The covariance matrix containing the model uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative experimental uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative model uncertainties of the particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative experimental uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Relative model uncertainties of the normalized particle-level $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ differential cross section in the fiducial region as a function of the XCone-jet mass.

Profile likelihood as a function of the overall HWW signal strength modifier, considering statistical uncertainties only

2D likelihood profile as a function of kappa_v and kappa_f

The measured product of cross section times branching fraction for HWW decay and the SM predictions for the merged Stage 1.2 STXS production bins at mH = 125.38 GeV.

Correlation matrix of the signal strength modifiers corresponding to the Stage 1.2 STXS production bins at mH = 125.38 GeV.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{t}\varphi}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}, \text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.