Measured inclusive fiducial H->ZZ->4l cross section as a function of the center-of-mass energy.

Postfit reconstructed distributions of the Higgs boson transverse momentum.

Postfit reconstructed distributions of the Higgs boson rapidity.

Higgs fiducial cross section in bins of pT of the Higgs boson.

Higgs fiducial cross section in bins of absolute value of rapidity of the Higgs boson.

Correlation matrix of fit in different final states

Correlation matrix of fit in pT(4l) bins

Correlation matrix of fit in abs(y(4l)) bins

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Example description

Lower limits on tab$eta$ as a function of m(A) in the mhEFT(125) scenario. Values below the black solid line are excluded at $95%$ CL

Matrix of the correlations of the systematic uncertainties between pairs of physics parameters, as obtained from the analysis to data at 13 TeV.

Matrix of the correlations between the physics parameters as obtained from the combination between the CMS 8 TeV and 13 TeV results. Correlations include both statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (both nominal and 'global') for all nuisance parameters in the W-like Z boson mass fit (flip odd/even events to choose muon charge), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (both nominal and 'global') for all nuisance parameters in the W-like Z boson mass fit (charge difference), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (only nominal) for all nuisance parameters in the Z boson mass fit (using dimuon mass), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (only nominal) for all nuisance parameters in the W boson mass fit (helicity cross section fit), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

$d\sigma^{W}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Generator-level $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ distribution and uncertainty. The last column reports the result of a simultaneous fit to the single muon $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μ}, \mathit{\eta}^{μ}, \mathit{q}^{μ})$ distribution in $W$ boson decays and the dimuon $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution in $Z$ boson events. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{Z}/d|\mathit{y}|\ (pb)$: Unfolded measured $\mathit{y}^{Z}$ distribution compared with the generator-level predictions before the likelihood fit or after the W-like $\mathit{m}_{Z}$ fit or from the direct fit to the $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{Z}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Unfolded measured $\mathit{p}_{T}^{Z}$ distribution compared with the generator-level predictions before the likelihood fit or after the W-like $\mathit{m}_{Z}$ fit or from the direct fit to the $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{W}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Generator-level $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ distribution and uncertainty, before and after running the helicity fit. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{W}/d|\mathit{y}|\ (pb)$: Generator-level $\mathit{y}^{Z}$ distribution and uncertainty, before and after running the helicity fit. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ modeling), with the alternative measurements using different approaches to the $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ modeling and its uncertainty. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from the CT18Z PDF set), with the alternative measurements using different PDFs and their uncertainty before the scaling procedure described in the paper text. The measured mass values are those reported in Table A.7 of the paper. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from the CT18Z PDF set), with the alternative measurements using different PDFs and their uncertainty after the scaling procedure described in the paper text. The measured mass values are those reported in Table A.7 of the paper. The scale factors for the PDF uncertainties from each set are reported in Table A.3 of the paper. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Distributions of p_T(Z) × ∆m in the SR after the fit to data with a (mA , mH) signal hypothesis of (1000, 850) GeV. The pre-fit signal is arbitrarily scaled and therefore omitted.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Observed local significance of the production cross section times branching ratio of the A → ZH → Ztt process in the (mA , mH) plane.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the (mH, mA) parameter space of the type-II 2HDM for tan β = 0.5 (blue), 1 (orange), and 1.5 (red), derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tan β, mA) parameter space at mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Median expected (dashed lines) and observed (filled contours) 95% CL exclusion regions in the type-II 2HDM (tanβ, cos(β−α)) parameter space at mA = 600 GeV and mH = 400 GeV, derived assuming narrow resonances. The enclosed regions are excluded. The dotted lines indicate points of constant natural line width of the A boson relative to its mass in the 2HDM.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hu}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $c_{Hd}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(1)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hq}^{(3)}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hu}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $c_{Hd}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while allowing the other coefficients to float freely at each point of the sca.

Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for $g^{(2)}_{ZZ}$ vs. $g^{(4)}_{ZZ}$ while other coefficients are fixed at their SM values.

Results for the $P_3$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_4^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_5^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_6^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the $P_8^\prime$ angular observable. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Results for the CP averaged observables $F_L$ and $P_1$–$P_8^\prime$. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 1.1 < $q^2$ < 2 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 2 < $q^2$ < 4.3 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 4.3 < $q^2$ < 6 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 6 < $q^2$ < 8.68 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 10.09 < $q^2$ < 12.86 GeV$^2$

Correlation matrix of angular observables Fl and P1–P8', considering only the statistical uncertainties from the maximum-likelihood fit in the interval 14.18 < $q^2$ < 16 GeV$^2$

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 and ISR starting scale SpaceShower:pT0Ref = 1 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH3 and ISR starting scale SudakovCommon:pTmin=0.7 GeV at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy from 38.8 GeV to 13 TeV.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters BeamRemnants:PrimordialkThard in Pythia with the underlying-event tune CP5 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Tuned intrinsic kT parameters ShowerHandler:IntrinsicPtGaussian in Herwig with the underlying-event tune CH2 at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV versus the dilepton mass range of the process.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters among various generator settings at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Pythia at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 38.8 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 62 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 200 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1800 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-anti-proton center-of-mass energy 1960 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 2760 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 8000 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-nucleon center-of-mass energy 8160 GeV.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the CMS measurement.

Covariance of the data uncertainty contribution to the tuned intrinsic kT parameters between the two generator settings of Herwig at proton-proton center-of-mass energy 13000 GeV when fitting to the LHCb measurement.

Observed profile likelihood projection on mH, for the 2e2mu final state, using the N-2D′ VXBS approach. Both statistical and systematic uncertainties have been considered.

Observed profile likelihood projection on mH, for the 2mu2e final state, using the N-2D′ VXBS approach. Both statistical and systematic uncertainties have been considered.

Result of the Higgs boson width measurement using the on-shell production only, shown as 1 − CL curve extracted using the Feldman–Cousins approach (black dots). The error bars represent the spread of the simulated experiments for each point.

Observed profile likelihood projections from the Higgs boson width fit using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].

Expected profile likelihood projections from the Higgs boson width fit using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].

Observed profile likelihood projections from the Higgs boson width fit using the on- and off-shell H → ZZ → 4l channel.

Expected (dashed) profile likelihood projections from the Higgs boson width fit using the on- and off-shell H → ZZ → 4l channel.

Observed 2D profile likelihood projection of the off-shell signal strength parameters (mu off-shell, mu off-shell) from the fit to the combined off-shell H → ZZ → 4l and 2l2nu channels. [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329] The best fit value is shown by the black cross and the SM prediction by the red x. The 68% and 95%CL contours are given by the dashed and solid curves, respectively. The color scale to the right of the plot relates the quantitative values.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2016 pre-VPF, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2016 pre-VPF, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2016 pre-VPF, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2016 pre-VPF, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2e events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges in 2016 pre-VPF.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2016 post-VPF, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2016 post-VPF, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2016 post-VPF, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2016 post-VPF, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2e events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges in 2016 post-VPF.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2017, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2017, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2017, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2017, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2e events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges in 2017.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2018, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) range, in 2018, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2018, for positive muons.

Difference between data and simulation in J/Psi → 2mu events, normalized to simulation, as a function of the transverse momentum (pt) for two different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges, in 2018, for negative muons.

Difference between data and simulation in Z → 2e events, normalized to simulation, as a function of transverse momentum (pt) for three different pseudorapidity (|eta|) ranges in 2018.

The observed likelihood scan as a function of mH using the N-2D'_VXBS$ approach.

The expected likelihood scan as a function of mH using the N-2D'_VXBS$ approach. Expected likelihood has been obtained with the hypothesis mH = 125.38 GeV

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2e events in data in 2016 pre-VPF.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2mu events in data 2016 pre-VPF.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2e events in data in 2016 post-VPF.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2mu events in data 2016 post-VPF.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2e events in data in 2017.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2mu events in data 2017.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2e events in data in 2018.

Comparison of measured with the predicted dilepton mass resolution using the event-by-event mass uncertainty for Z → 2mu events in data 2018.

Observed profile likelihood projections from the Higgs boson width fit using the on- and off-shell H → ZZ → 4l channel with kappa Q constrained to 0.

Expected profile likelihood projections from the Higgs boson width fit using the on- and off-shell H → ZZ → 4l channel with kappa Q constrained to 0.

Observed profile likelihood projection on the Higgs boson width using on- and off-shell production. The analysis of H → ZZ → 4l, considering an unconstrained coupling strength κQ is presented.

Expected profile likelihood projection on the Higgs boson width using on- and off-shell production. The analysis of H → ZZ → 4l, considering an unconstrained coupling strength κQ is presented.

Expected profile likelihood projection on muF off-shell using on- and off-shell production for H → ZZ → 4l.

Observed profile likelihood projection on muF off-shell using on- and off-shell production for H → ZZ → 4l.

Expected profile likelihood projection on muF off-shell using using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].

Observed profile likelihood projection on muF off-shell using using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].

Expected profile likelihood projection on muV off-shell using on- and off-shell production for H → ZZ → 4l.

Observed profile likelihood projection on muV off-shell using on- and off-shell production for H → ZZ → 4l.

Expected profile likelihood projection on muV off-shell using using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu.

Observed profile likelihood projection on muV off-shell using using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].

Expected profile likelihood projection on mu off-shell using on- and off-shell production for H → ZZ → 4l.

Observed profile likelihood projection on mu off-shell using on- and off-shell production for H → ZZ → 4l.

Expected profile likelihood projection on mu off-shell using using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].

Observed profile likelihood projection on mu off-shell using using the full combination of H → ZZ → 4l with the off-shell H → ZZ → 2l2nu [Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329].