Fitted SME coefficients and their uncertainties at 1$\sigma$ and 2$sigma$, measured in fits of single coefficients while the coefficients corresponding to the three other directions are left floating, within the $c_L$, $c_R$, $c$, and $d$ families. The error bar includes statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Uncertainty breakdown for SME fits of single coefficients while the coefficients corresponding to the three other directions are left floating, by splitting according to the treatment of time dependence:\ flat across sidereal time (flat luminosity component, background normalization, theory), correlated in sidereal time bins (trigger, luminosity stability and linearity, pileup, MC statistical uncertainty, single top quark decay in the SME), systematics uncorrelated in sidereal time bins (other experimental uncertainties), and statistical uncertainty.

Figure 3 top left. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the RS graviton mass $m_{G}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 top right. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the heavy higgs mass $m_{S}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 mid left. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the RS graviton mass $m_{G}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 mid right. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the heavy higgs mass $m_{S}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 bottom left. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the RS graviton mass $m_{G}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 3 bottom right. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction as a function of the heavy higgs mass $m_{S}$ for the full Run 2 data set are shown. Expected $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively

Figure 4 top left. Expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{G}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 4 top right. Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{G}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 4 bottom left. Expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{S}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 4 bottom right. Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction as a function of the $m_{S}$ versus the resonance width for the full Run 2 data set.

Figure 6. The $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ spectra and background prediction after nuisance paramter marginalization (post-fit) due to SM diphoton production ($\gamma\gamma$) and fake photon production (j$\gamma$, jj) for the EBEB, combining the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The prediction with a large extra dimensions signal (GRW convention with $M_{S}$ = 9 TeV) is also shown. The pull distributions, normalized to the statistical uncertainty only, are shown underneath the spectra. The last bin contains the overflow of events beyond $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ > 3.5 TeV.

Figure 6. The $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ spectra and background prediction after nuisance paramter marginalization (post-fit) due to SM diphoton production ($\gamma\gamma$) and fake photon production (j$\gamma$, jj) for the EBEE, combining the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The prediction with a large extra dimensions signal (GRW convention with $M_{S}$ = 9 TeV) is also shown. The pull distributions, normalized to the statistical uncertainty only, are shown underneath the spectra. The last bin contains the overflow of events beyond $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ > 3.5 TeV.

Figure 7. The exclusion limit for the clockwork framework over the k--M5 parameter space. The shaded region denotes where the theory becomes nonperturbative. The region below and to the left of the solid line constitutes the excluded region. Expected 1std and 2std limit bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively.

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 2

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 3

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 4

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 5

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 6

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 7

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 8

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 9

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 10

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 11

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 12

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 13

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 14

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 15

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 16

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 17

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 18

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 19

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 20

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 21

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 22

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 23

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 24

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 25

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 26

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 27

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 28

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 29

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 30

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 31

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 32

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 33

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the away region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 34

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the towards region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 35

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the transverse region vs. leading-jet $p_{T}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 36

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 37

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 38

Mean multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 39

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 40

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 41

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 42

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 43

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 44

Ratio of the multiplicity of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 45

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 46

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 47

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $K^{0}_{S}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 48

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 49

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 50

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 51

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 52

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 53

Mean multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 54

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 55

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 56

Mean scalar sum-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ per unit $(\eta, \phi)$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 57

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 58

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 59

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 60

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 61

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 62

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to prompt charged particles in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 63

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 64

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 65

Ratio of the multiplicity of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 66

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 67

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 68

Ratio of the scalar sum-pt of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ to $K^{0}_{S}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 69

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the away region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 70

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the towards region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 71

Mean-$p_{T}$ of $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ in the transverse region vs. $N_\textrm{ch,trans}$

Statistical covariance between bins of Table 72

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2018 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 2M1L and 3M regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2018 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

The five-jet invariant mass distribution in the tH channel (black markers) after the high-mass selection in the QCD multijet 3T control region for the 2018 data set. The histograms are the corresponding reweighted 2M1L distributions. The background distribution is normalized to the number of entries in the data. The shaded area corresponds to the statistical uncertainties in the 2M1L control regions. A potential 900 GeV T' signal (red cross-hatched histogram) is added to the background histogram demonstrating a negligible contribution. Similar results are observed in the tZ channel, and for the other years, but with slightly larger statistical uncertainties.

The five-jet invariant mass distribution in the tH channel (black markers) after the high-mass selection in the ttbar 2T1L control region for the 2018 data set. The histograms are the corresponding reweighted 2M1L distributions. The background distribution is normalized to the number of entries in the data. The shaded area corresponds to the statistical uncertainties in the 2M1L control regions. A potential 900 GeV T' signal (red cross-hatched histogram) is added to the background histogram demonstrating a negligible contribution. Similar results are observed in the tZ channel, and for the other years, but with slightly larger statistical uncertainties.

The five-jet invariant mass distribution in the tH channel (black markers) after the high-mass selection in the 3M signal region for the 2018 data set. The histograms are the corresponding reweighted 2M1L distributions. The background distribution is normalized to the number of entries in the data. The shaded area corresponds to the statistical uncertainties in the 2M1L control regions. A potential 900 GeV T' signal (red cross-hatched histogram) is added to the background histogram demonstrating a negligible contribution. Similar results are observed in the tZ channel, and for the other years, but with slightly larger statistical uncertainties.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the all-tH channel.

Observed p-values when considering the tH channel for each year and their combination.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section for a single VLQ T production and the branching ration given as functions of $m_{T'}$ for a relative width of 1%. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The solid red curves show the theoretical expectation at LO.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 2M1L and 3M regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the low-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the low-mass analysis only signals with mass below 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 2M1L and 3M regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2016 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Weights from b tagging efficiency ratios as functions of the five-jet invariant mass in 2017 data for the high-mass selection, connecting the 3M and 3T regions. The red line corresponds to the central value of the transfer function and the shaded area represents the 95% confidence level uncertainty band. For the high-mass analysis only signals with mass above 800GeV are tested, so primarily the lower part of the distribution contributes to the final result.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 2M1L regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3M regions for the high-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the low-mass selections. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 700 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Background: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Data: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Signal: Five-jet invariant mass distributions after a background-only fit (blue histogram) to the complete dataset (black markers) in the 3T regions for the high-mass selection. The dashed blue band represents the uncertainty on the fitted background estimate, and red dashed line shows the expected signal distribution for a 900 GeV T'. The fit is performed on the combined data from all 3 years in the tZ and tH channel.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.4$ < \alpha < $0.44%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.49$ < \alpha < $0.55%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.55$ < \alpha < $0.6%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.6$ < \alpha < $0.7%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.7$ < \alpha < $0.81%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.81$ < \alpha < $3.0%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Two dimensional plot where the Z-axis is the observed (paper Fig. 3) or expected (Supp. Fig. 20) 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section for $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

Expected exclusion limits for $m_X N / f = 1/9$ for signal cross sections for for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$.

Expected exclusion limits for $m_X N / f = 1$ for signal cross sections for for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.005$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.006$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.007$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.008$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.009$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.01$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.011$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.012$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.013$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.014$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.015$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.016$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.017$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.018$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.019$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.02$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.021$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.022$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.023$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.024$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.025$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

Signal fractional efficiencies

Local significance in units of standard deviations in the $(m_\phi/m_X) − m_X$ plane.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on $C_{\mathrm{LL}}^{2332}$ vs. $C_{\mathrm{LR}}^{2332}$ (dark blue) showing the full range.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on $C_{\mathrm{LR}}^{2233}$ vs. $C_{\mathrm{LL}}^{2233}$ (light blue) showing the full range.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on $C_{\mathrm{LL}}^{2233}$ vs. $C_{\mathrm{LR}}^{2332}$ (red) showing an enlarged view of the region around values of 0.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on $C_{\mathrm{LR}}^{2233}$ vs. $C_{\mathrm{LL}}^{2332}$ (orange) showing an enlarged view of the region around values of 0.

Observed limits at the 95% CL on $C_{\mathrm{LL}}^{2332}$ vs. $C_{\mathrm{LR}}^{2332}$ (dark blue) showing an enlarged view of the region around values of 0.

The mass planes of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidates for the 2Pass selections of the analysis, shown for the VBF $\kappa_{2V} = 0$ HH samples.

The mass planes of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidates for the 2Pass selections of the analysis, shown for the $m_{X} = 1$ TeV spin-0 narrow-width resonance HH samples.

Observed values of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the resolved (dotted green) and boosted (dashed blue) analyses, and their combination (solid black), with all other coupling modifiers fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected values of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the resolved (dotted green) and boosted (dashed blue) analyses, and their combination (solid black), with all other coupling modifiers fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of boosted-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Observed $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of resolved-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Observed $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of combination result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of boosted-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of resolved-only result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected $-2\ln\Lambda$ values of combination result in the $\kappa_{\Lambda}-\kappa_{2V}$ plane.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of spin-0 heavy resonances with narrow width assumptions. The SM H → bb branching ratio is assumed in both cases. The ±1$\sigma$ and ±2$\sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown as coloured bands.

Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of spin-0 heavy resonances with broad width assumptions. The SM H → bb branching ratio is assumed in both cases. The ±1$\sigma$ and ±2$\sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits are shown as coloured bands.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the production cross-sections of the combined VBF HH process as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ . The expected exclusion limits assume no HH production and are obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The red line shows the theory prediction for the VBF HH cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ where all other parameters and couplings are set to their SM values.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the production cross-sections of the combined HH process as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ . The expected exclusion limits assume no HH production and are obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The red line shows the theory prediction for the HH cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ where all other parameters and couplings are set to their SM values.

Observed −2 ln Λ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ with the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected −2 ln Λ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ with the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ modifiers fixed to unity.

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step for the narrow-width signal

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step for the broad-width signal

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for each event selection step for the nonresonant signal.

The distributions of the invariant mass of the HH system for various values of $\kappa_{2V}$ .

Electroweak corrections for the $R_{\Delta\phi}(p_\mathrm{T})$ distribution. The multiplicative combination is considered as the main electroweak correction factor and the additive combination as an uncertainty estimate.

Upper 95% CL limits on HH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{\lambda}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on VHH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on HH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on VHH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on HH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ to their SM-predicted values.