The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average tetrajet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The average dijet invariant mass distributions in data, along with the fitted background estimates for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{4j}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.10 < $\alpha$ < 0.12.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.12 < $\alpha$ < 0.14.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.14 < $\alpha$ < 0.16.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.16 < $\alpha$ < 0.18.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.18 < $\alpha$ < 0.20.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.20 < $\alpha$ < 0.22.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.22 < $\alpha$ < 0.24.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.24 < $\alpha$ < 0.26.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.26 < $\alpha$ < 0.28.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.28 < $\alpha$ < 0.30.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.30 < $\alpha$ < 0.32.

The expected and observed limits on $m_{\langle 2j \rangle}$ for Gaussian signal templates using a 4-parameter fit function for 0.32 < $\alpha$ < 0.34.

The product of the analysis acceptance and selection efficiency for all analysis selection criteria is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

The cross-section of the signal samples is shown as a function of $m_Y$ and $m_{X}/m_{Y}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 monopoles as a function of mass for magnetic charges $|g|=1g_D$ and $|g|=2g_D$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-0 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of Drell-Yan spin-1/2 HECOs production as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-0 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for all masses and charges of photon-fusion pair-produced spin-1/2 HECOs as a function of mass for various values of electric charge in the range $20\le|z|\le100$.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=1g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for $g=2g_\textrm{D}$ monopoles of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=20$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=40$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=60$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=80$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 200 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 1500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 2500 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 3000 GeV.

Selection efficiency as a function of transverse kinetic energy $E^\text{kin}_\text{T}=E_\text{kin}\sin\theta$ and pseudorapidity $|\eta|$ for HECOs of charge $|z|=100$ of mass 4000 GeV.

Figure 2a, full-event

Figure 2b, subevent

Figure 3

Figure 4

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.2 < |y| < 1.6.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 1.6 < |y| < 2.0.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.0 < |y| < 2.4.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.4 < |y| < 2.8.

Measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for 2.8 < |y| < 3.2.

Measured cross sections in full-lepton phase space as a function of |y|.

Normalised measured $p_T$ cross sections in full-lepton phase space for |y| < 1.6.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 13 TeV data in fb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 13 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Correction factors for an assumed angular dependence $\propto 1+\lambda_{\theta} \cos^2\theta $ in the helicity frame, for several values of the parameter $\lambda_{\theta}$. The correction factors were found to be the same (within 1% - 2%) for $J\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons, for prompt and non-prompt production mechanisms, and for the three rapidity intervals considered in this paper.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63717.4 $\pm$ 252.4, NPowHeg truth =338714.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63855.8 $\pm$ 252.7 , NPowHeg truth =338708.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64809.8 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634285.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Truth $P_{T}^{Z}$ distribution after reweghting to data.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63717.4 $\pm$ 252.4, NPowHeg truth =338714.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63855.8 $\pm$ 252.7 , NPowHeg truth =338708.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64809.8 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634285.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with dressed leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63717.4 $\pm$ 252.4, NPowHeg truth =338714.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63855.8 $\pm$ 252.7 , NPowHeg truth =338708.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64809.8 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634285.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64822.9 $\pm$ 254.6, NPowHeg truth =634276.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64273.2 $\pm$ 253.5, NPowHeg truth =338671.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 65362.4 $\pm$ 255.7 , NPowHeg truth =634214.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 63486.8 $\pm$ 252.0, NPowHeg truth =333348.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>20$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 64432.6 $\pm$ 253.8, NPowHeg truth =624059.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57095.9 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =76327.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57130 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301666, N Sherpa truth =763273.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58310.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $M(l^{-}\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58320.9 $\pm$ 245, NPowHeg truth =564672, N Sherpa truth =814016.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57705.4 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =301655, N Sherpa truth =763259.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58869.2 $\pm$ 256, NPowHeg truth =564660, NS herpa truth =813995.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to ee\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 57358.6 $\pm$ 254 , NPowHeg truth =298662, N Sherpa truth =756609.

Combined Covariance Matrix for Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma}$ distribution for $Z \to \mu\mu\gamma$ process with bare leptons and bkg subtraction. $M_{ll}>45$ GeV. Nexp.un f. = 58226.4 $\pm$ 254, NPowHeg truth =558949, N Sherpa truth =806988.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons.

Unfolded $M(l^{+}\gamma\gamma)$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for second photon.

Unfolded dR distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for second photon.

Unfolded dRgg distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons.

Unfolded dRgg distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 1}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 1}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for leading photon.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 2}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with dressed leptons for second photon.

Unfolded $P_{T}^{\gamma 2}$ distribution for $Z \to ll\gamma\gamma$ process with bare leptons for second photon.

Likelihood profiles of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter.

Likelihood profiles of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter.

The 95% CL upper limits on the $HH$ cross-section for different values of $\kappa_\lambda$. The expected limits assume no $HH$ production. The red line shows the theory prediction for the combined ggF $HH$ and VBF $HH$ cross-section as a function of $\kappa_\lambda$ where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except $\kappa_\lambda$. The bands surrounding the red cross-section line indicate the theoretical uncertainty on the predicted cross-section. The $\kappa_\lambda$ values in the interval $[-6.7, 15.3]$ cannot be excluded by this analysis.

The 95% CL upper limits on the VBF $HH$ cross section for different values of $\kappa_{2V}$. The expected limits assume no VBF $HH$ production. SM ggF $HH$ production is considered as background. The red line shows the theory prediction for the VBF $HH$ cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ where all parameters and couplings are set to their SM values except $\kappa_{2V}$. The uncertainty band is smaller than the width of the plotted line. The $\kappa_{2V}$ values in the interval $[-0.3, 2.4]$ cannot be excluded by this analysis.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $\kappa_{\lambda}$, $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter space, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{gghh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{gghh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{tthh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood exptected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) and 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{tthh}$ versus $c_{hhh}$ HEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

The observed (filled circles) and expected (hollow circles) 95% CL upper limits on the $HH$ ggF production cross-section in the Standard Model and for seven HEFT benchmark points. The teal and yellow colored bands indicate the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations on the expected limit due to statistical and systematic uncertainties. The predicted cross-sections of each of the models under consideration are shown by the red crosses. The contribution from VBF production to the total $HH$ production cross-section is neglected.

Likelihood observed contours at 68% CL (solid line) and 95% CL (dashed line) in the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ versus $c_{H}$ SMEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. The best-fit value, denoted by a cross in the plot, corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood expected contours at 68% CL (teal shaded region) 95% CL (yellow shaded region) in the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ versus $c_{H}$ SMEFT parameter space, with the remaining coefficient fixed to its SM value. In the plot, the SM prediction is indicated by the star.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category. When varying $\kappa_{\lambda}$, the other coupling modifiers affecting the VBF $HH$ production mode are set to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category. When varying $\kappa_{2V}$, the other coupling modifiers affecting the VBF $HH$ production mode are set to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

Expected yields of the signal $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ after applying the analysis preselection and in each analysis category after the final selection. The $HH$ yield is obtained considering both the $ggF$ and $VBF$ contributions. The other coupling modifiers affecting $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions. The bands indicate the simulation statistical uncertainty.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The acceptance times efficiency for the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

The yield of the signal ggF $HH$ process in each analysis category as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients. The dashed lines denote values that are excluded at 95% CL. The bottom panels show the efficiency of the sum of all analysis categories.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 1 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 2 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 3 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the low mass 4 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 1 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 2 region.

Distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for events in data (black dots with error bars) compared to the sum of the expected signal and backgrounds (histograms) in the high mass 3 region.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{hhh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ HEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{H}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of the $c_{{H}\boxed{}}$ SMEFT coefficients when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to the SM value.

Summary of the expected (blue) and observed (orange) one-dimensional constraints at 68% (solid error bars) and 95% (dashed error bars) CL on the coefficients of selected HEFT (top) and SMEFT (bottom) operators describing Higgs boson interactions affecting $HH$ production through gluon--gluon fusion. The results are obtained from one dimensional scans of the profile log-likelihood assuming that all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The contribution from VBF $HH$ production is neglected.