Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the inclusive ggF HH production from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ, bb̄bb̄, multilepton and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on μ_ggF^HH (μ_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the ±1σ and ±2σ bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the VBF HH production from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ, bb̄bb̄, multilepton and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on μ_ggF^HH (μ_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the ±1σ and ±2σ bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the inclusive ggF and VBF HH production cross-section from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ, bb̄bb̄, multilepton and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. The Higgs boson mass is set to 125 GeV when deriving the predicted SM cross-section (red band). The expected limits, along with the ±1σ and ±2σ bands, are calculated under the assumption of no Higgs boson pair production and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95% CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of (a) the inclusive ggF and VBF processes as a function of κ_λ, for the bb̄γγ (purple), bb̄τ⁺τ^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb̄bb̄ (blue) and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no HH production. The red line shows the theory prediction for the ggF and VBF HH production cross-section as a function of κ_λ. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95% CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of the VBF process as a function of κ_2V, for the bb̄γγ (purple), bb̄τ⁺τ^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb̄bb̄ (blue) and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no VBF HH production. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The red line shows the predicted VBF HH cross-section as a function of κ_2V. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95% CL combined upper limits on the cross-section for the SM and seven BSM HEFT benchmarks (arXiv:2304.01968 [hep-ph]) in the ggF process, describing representative signal kinematics and m_HH shape features obtained by varying multiple HEFT coefficients. The expected limits from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ and bb̄bb̄ decay channels are presented as well. Theoretical predictions, estimated using specific sets of coefficient values defined in the benchmarks, are shown as red cross dots.

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.2 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, pT,jet

R32 for delta y

R32 for delta y max

R32 for $m_{jj}$

R32 for $m_{jj, max}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R43 for $H_{T2}$, pT,jet

R43 for $Delta y_{jj}$

R43 for $Delta y_{jj, max}$

R43 for $m_{jj}$

R43 for $m_{jj, max}$

R54 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R54 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R54 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R54 for $Delta y_{jj}$

R54 for $Delta y_{jj, max}$

R54 for $m_{jj}$

R54 for $m_{jj, max}$

R42 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R42 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R42 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R42, pT,jet

R42 for $Delta y_{jj}$

R42 for $Delta y_{jj, max}$

R42 for $m_{jj}$

R42 for $m_{jj}$

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$ > 60 GeV, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.05, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.10, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.20, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >=3

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >=4

HT2, $p_{T,3}$/HT2 > 0.30, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

pTnincl

pTnincl

pTnincl

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 3

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 4

mjj max, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 2

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 3

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 4

$m_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 5

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 2

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 3

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 4

$Delta y_{jj}$ $N_{jet}$ >= 5

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 2

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 3

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 4

$Delta y_{jj, max}$, $N_{jet}$ >= 5

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 60 GeV < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.05 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.1 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.2 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

R32 for $H_{T2}$, 0.3 x $H_{T2} < $p_{T,3}$

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

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 1b$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $e$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the $1\ell 2bincl$ $\mu$+jets channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield, including top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}$), single top, $W$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, $Z$ boson production with $b$, $c$, and light quarks, diboson, and fake lepton backgrounds.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)1b signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the pre-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of $H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell,j} = \sum_{\ell,j} p_{T}^{\ell,j}$, scalar sum of $p_T$ for all jets and leptons in the $\ell+$jets channel, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\) in the 2\(\ell\)2bincl signal region. The histogram represents the number of events per GeV, with the data points shown as black dots and their associated uncertainties. The stacked colored histograms indicate different processes: \(t\bar{t}\) (red), single top (orange), \(Z+b\) (dark blue), \(Z+c\) (medium blue), \(Z+\)light (light blue), diboson (gray), and fake lepton (purple). The hatched area represents the uncertainty in the predictions.

The correlation matrix of the fit parameters for the six combined regions, including the signal regions (electron+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, muon+jets: 1-lepton 1-bjet and 1-lepton 2-bjet inclusive, dilepton: 2-lepton 1-bjet and 2-lepton 2-bjet inclusive) is shown.

The impact of systematic uncertainties on the fitted signal-strength parameter $\hat{\mu}$ for the combined (six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$) fit of all channels. Only the 15 most significant systematic uncertainties are shown and listed in decreasing order of their impact on $\mu$ on the $y$-axis. The empty (filled) blue/cyan boxes correspond to the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, referring to the upper $x$-axis. The impact of each systematic uncertainty, $\Delta \mu$, is calculated by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu$ with the result of the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter $\theta$ to its best-fit value $\hat{\theta}$ shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \theta(\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \hat{\theta})$. The black points, which refer to the lower $x$-axis, show the pulls of the fitted nuisance parameters, i.e., the deviations of the fitted parameters $\hat{\theta}$ from their nominal values $\theta_0$, normalized to their nominal uncertainties $\Delta \theta$. The black lines show the post-fit uncertainties of the nuisance parameters, relative to their nominal uncertainties, which are indicated by the dashed lines.

Breakdown of relative systematic uncertainties in the measured ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-section. The quoted uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit with a group of nuisance parameters fixed to their fitted values and subtracting in quadrature the resulting total uncertainty from the uncertainty of the complete fit. However, the total uncertainty is not the quadratic sum of the grouped impacts, as this approach neglects the correlation among the different groups.

The signal strength $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$, defined as the ratio of the observed signal for the combined six signal regions ($e+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, $\mu+$jets: $1\ell1b$ and $1\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$, dilepton: $2\ell1b$ and $2\ell2b\mathrm{incl}$.) to the SM expectation with no nPDF effects included, is measured using a binned profile-likelihood method. The parameter $\mu_{t\bar{t}}$ is determined by the fit to the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ data distributions in the six signal regions, where the $H_{T}^{\ell,j}$ variable is defined as the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the leptons and HI jets. Over all 9% uncertainties is observed

The figure shows the measurement of the top quark pair production cross-section, $\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$, in proton-lead (p+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 8.16$ TeV, based on 165 nb$^{-1}$ of data. The central measured value is shown alongside theoretical predictions using various parton distribution functions (PDFs): MCFM TUJU21, MCFM nNNPDF30, MCFM nCTEQ15HQ, and MCFM EPPS21. The green and yellow bands represent the total and statistical uncertainties of the data, respectively. Additional measurements for comparison include the CMS result at 8.16 TeV for p+Pb collisions and an extrapolated ATLAS+CMS result for pp collisions at 8 TeV. Relevant references are indicated: PRL 119 (2017) 242001 and JHEP 07 (2023) 213.

The ATLAS measurement of \( R_{p\text{Pb}} \) as a function of the nuclear modification factor in proton-lead (\( p\) + Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair \( \sqrt{s_{NN}} = 8.16 \) TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 165 nb\(^{-1}\). The black points represent theoretical predictions from various MCFM parton distribution functions (PDFs): TUJU21, nNNPDF30, nCTEQ15HQ, and EPPS21. The green band indicates the total uncertainty of the data, while the yellow band represents the statistical uncertainty. The dashed line at \( R_{p\text{Pb}} = 1 \) shows the expected value in the absence of nuclear modifications.

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 7

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 10

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 14

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 6

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 7

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 9

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 18

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 4

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 2

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 18

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 9

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 1

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 8

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 5

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 17

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 5

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 8

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 12

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 11

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 15

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 3

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 13

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 16

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 3

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 20

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 4

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 14

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 12

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 13

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 11

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 20

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 17

Isoscalar interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 15

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 6

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 2

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 10

Isovector interaction coupling limit for Lagrangian 16

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

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the combined fit, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

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

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

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

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{gghh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{gghh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{tthh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{hhh}$, $c_{tthh}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{H}$, $c_{H◻}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross. The best-fit value corresponds to the very first entry in the table.

Likelihood contours at 68% (solid line) and 95% (dashed line) CL in the ($c_{H}$, $c_{H◻}$) parameter space, when all other Wilson coefficients are fixed to their SM values. The corresponding expected contours are shown by the inner and outer shaded regions. The SM prediction is indicated by the star, while the observed best-fit value is denoted by the black cross.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal ggF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting ggF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ SLT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

The acceptance times efficiency [in %] for the signal VBF $HH$ process as a function of the coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$ in each analysis category for the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ LTT channel. The other coupling modifiers affecting VBF $HH$ production are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Expected (dashed line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

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

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

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{had}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

Observed (solid line) value of $-2\ln\Lambda$ as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ for the fit to the $\tau_{\mathrm{lep}}\tau_{\mathrm{had}}$ channel, when all other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM predictions.

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

Local observed significance for signal discovery at different (mX, mS). The points show where the significance was evaluated. The band at mS = 125 GeV is not shown as those points are equivalent to those already probed in Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 052001.

Signal region yield for each of the simulated signal samples and interpolated signal points that were analyzed in the 1 b-jet Signal Region, normalized to a cross section of 1 fb. The signal region yields for one of the signals is found in Table 2 of the paper.

Signal region yield for each of the simulated signal samples and interpolated signal points that were analyzed in the 2 b-jet Signal Region, normalized to a cross section of 1 fb. The signal region yields for one of the signals is found in Table 2 of the paper.

Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with post-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. `Signal (prod.)' and `Signal (dec.)' refer to the single-top-quark production and top-quark pair decay signal contributions, respectively.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the branching ratio corresponding to the decay of a top quark to a muon and a tau lepton through a cLFV process for scalar, vector and tensor couplings. In the vector case, all vector operators are assumed to contribute simultaneously with the same effective coupling strength. The table shows the endpoint values of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{u})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{c})$, which are interpolated linearly for each limit.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients for scalar, vector and tensor couplings of a top quark to a muon and a tau lepton through a cLFV process. In the vector case, all vector operators are assumed to contribute simultaneously with the same effective coupling strength. The table shows the endpoint values of the $|c^{\mu\tau\mathrm{ut}}|$ and $|c^{\mu\tau\mathrm{ct}}|$ Wilson coefficients, which are interpolated assuming a linear relationship between $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{u})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{c})$.

Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with pre-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. The signal yields represent a leptoquark mass of $m_{S_{1}} = 1$ TeV and a coupling strength of $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}} = 2.0$.

Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with post-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. The signal yields represent a leptoquark mass of $m_{S_{1}} = 1$ TeV and a coupling strength of $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}} = 2.0$.

Observed and expected exclusion 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the $S_{1}$ leptoquark coupling strength $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}}$ as a function of LQ mass, $m_{S_{1}}$.

Theoretical cross-sections for single-top-quark production and top-quark decays through cLFV interactions involving vector, scalar and tensor EFT Wilson coefficients. The column titled as $c^{(ijk3)}_{\textrm{vector}}$ represents the individual cross-section contributions from each of $c_{\mathsf{lq}}^{-(ijk3)}$, $c_{\mathsf{eq}}^{(ijk3)}$, $c_{\mathsf{lu}}^{(ijk3)}$ and $c_{\mathsf{eu}}^{(ijk3)}$. The coefficient indices represent the lepton flavour generations ($i,j = 1,2,3$ where $i \neq j$) and light quark flavour generations ($k = 1,2$). The single-top-quark production cross-sections are quoted for $u$- and $c$-quark couplings separately, while they are combined for the $t\bar{t}$ decay process ($q_k = u,c$). The scale and PDF uncertainties are given. The value of each Wilson coefficient is set to 1.0 for the calculation of the cross-section.

Requirements for each analysis region. The symbol $\ell_{3}$ denotes the lowest $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ lepton. In $\mathrm{CR}t\bar{t}\mu$ an additional requirement is placed on the leading muon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ($p^{\mu_1}_\mathrm{T}$) and dilepton invariant masses in order to reject signal events.

Post-fit event yields for each analysis region entering the fit, with correlations on the full systematic uncertainties taken into account as determined in the fit under a signal+background hypothesis. The 'fake electron' category in the CR$t\bar{t}\mu$ control region collects small contributions primarily from $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ which enter the event selection due to photon conversions.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on Wilson coefficients corresponding to 2Q2L EFT operators which could introduce a cLFV top decay in the $\mu\tau$ channel, and existing limits from JHEP04 (2019) 014 (previous). The previous limits shown for $c^{1(ijk3)}_{\mathsf{lequ}}$ and $c^{3(ijk3)}_{\mathsf{lequ}}$ are tightened by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$, as JHEP04 (2019) 014 does not assume that these operators are Hermitian. Results are shown separately for the $\mu\tau ut$ and $\mu\tau ct$ interactions. The lepton generations are denoted by $i,j=2,3$ for $\mu$ and $\tau$ (where $i \neq j$) and the quark generations are denoted by $k=1,2$ for $u$ and $c$, respectively.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the branching ratio ($\mathcal{B}$) corresponding to the decay of a top quark to a muon and a $\tau$ lepton through a cLFV process using specific Wilson coefficients corresponding to 2Q2L EFT operators. Results are shown separately for $\mu\tau ut$ and $\mu\tau ct$ interactions. The lepton generations are denoted by $i,j=2,3$ for $\mu$ and $\tau$ (where $i \neq j$) and the quark generations are denoted by $k=1,2$ for $u$ and $c$, respectively.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the inclusive branching ratio ($\mathcal{B}$) corresponding to the decay of a top quark to a muon and a $\tau$-lepton through a cLFV process. Limits are shown for the statistical uncertainty only and for the full set of statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients corresponding to EFT operators inducing the decay of a top quark to a muon, a tau lepton and an up quark through a cLFV process ($\mu\tau ut$ interaction).

Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients corresponding to EFT operators inducing the decay of a top quark to a muon, a tau lepton and a charm quark through a cLFV process ($\mu\tau ct$ interaction).

Ranking of nuisance parameters by post-fit impact on cLFV signal strength $\mu$ (the parameter of interest, POI). The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter is calculated as the difference to the fitted value of cLFV signal strength between the nominal fit and a fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. The pulls of the nuisance parameters are calculated relative to zero. These pulls and their post-fit errors, $\Delta\hat{\theta} / \Delta\theta$, are given in the second column of the table.