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.

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.

Fit results for the region 2 of pair produced resolved three jet mass ($m_{jjj}$) distribution, after $H_{\rm T}>600$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, sixth jet $p_{\rm T}>50$ GeV, $D^2_{[(6,3)+(3,2)]}<1.0$, $A_m <0.175$, $\Delta>180$ GeV, $D^2_{[3,2]}<0.175$

Fit results for the region 3 of pair produced resolved three jet mass ($m_{jjj}$) distribution, after $H_{\rm T}>600$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, sixth jet $p_{\rm T}>100$ GeV, $D^2_{[(6,3)+(3,2)]}<0.9$, $A_m <0.15$, $\Delta>150$ GeV, $D^2_{[3,2]}<0.2$

Expected and observed upper limits on the signal strength for the pair produced merged trijets. Acceptance after the selection $p_{\rm T}>300$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, and $\tau_{32,\mathrm{DDT}}<0$ on both leading and subleading jet and $A_m<0.15$ between the two leading jets.

Expected and observed upper limits on the signal strength for the pair produced merged dijets. Acceptance after the selection $p_{\rm T}>300$ GeV, $|\eta|<2.4$, and $N^1_{2,\mathrm{DDT}}<0$ on both leading and subleading jet and $A_m<0.15$ between the two leading jets.

Expected and observed upper limits on the signal strength for the pair produced resolved trijets (including overlaps). Acceptance for three regions search requions described in table 1 of the paper.

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma$B(pp→X→Y(bb)H) for combination as a function of m$_Y$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the X → HH cross section as a function of mX from the combination of the three channels bbγγ, bbττ, and bbbb for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb−1 with different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties.

Expected upper limits on the X → YH cross section times B(Y → bb) for mX ≤ 1000 GeV at 95 % CL as a function of m$_X$ and m$_Y$ from the combination of all considered channels projected to an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$. Systematic uncertainties according to the ”S2” scenario are assumed.

Example description

Example description

Example description

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production via vector boson fusion cross section obtained for both single-lepton and dilepton channels, and from their combination

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production cross section for two different benchmark scenarios “JHEP04(2016)01” and “JHEP03(2020)91”

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier κλ All Higgs boson couplings other than λ are assumed to have the values predicted by the SM

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production via VBF cross section as a function of the effective coupling κ2V. The ggF contribution in this case is set to the SM expectation. All other Higgs boson couplings are assumed to have the values predicted by the SM.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling c2. All other Higgs boson couplings are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM

The observed exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The expected exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The expected exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The expected upper $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The expected upper $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The expected lower $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The expected lower $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The $95\%$ CL observed upper limits on the cross section shown as a functions of $T_D$ and the pseudoscalar mass $m_{\phi}$ for $m_S = 300$ GeV, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The $95\%$ CL observed upper limits on the cross section shown as a functions of $T_D$ and the pseudoscalar mass $m_{\phi}$ for $m_S = 300$ GeV, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The $95\%$ CL observed upper limits on the cross section shown as a functions of $T_D$ and the pseudoscalar mass $m_{\phi}$ for $m_S = 600$ GeV, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The $95\%$ CL observed upper limits on the cross section shown as a functions of $T_D$ and the pseudoscalar mass $m_{\phi}$ for $m_S = 600$ GeV, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The $95\%$ CL observed upper limits on the cross section shown as a functions of $T_D$ and the pseudoscalar mass $m_{\phi}$ for $m_S = 1000$ GeV, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The $95\%$ CL observed upper limits on the cross section shown as a functions of $T_D$ and the pseudoscalar mass $m_{\phi}$ for $m_S = 1000$ GeV, for the case $m_{A'}=1.0$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR}=100\%$).

The observed exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The observed exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The expected exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The expected exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The expected upper $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The expected upper $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The expected lower $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The expected lower $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.5$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 40, 40, 20\%$).

The observed exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The observed exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The expected exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The expected exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The expected upper $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The expected upper $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The expected lower $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

The expected lower $68\%$ exclusions for the nominal $\sigma$ cross section in the plane of $m_{\phi}$ and $T_D$, for various $m_S$ values, for the case $m_{A'} = 0.7$ GeV ($A' \rightarrow e^+e^-, \mu^+\mu^-, \pi^+\pi^-$ with $\mathcal{BR} = 15, 15, 70\%$).

For a selection of signal samples in era 2018 with $m_{\phi} = T_D = 3$ GeV, the relative efficiencies and the total efficiency with respect to the selection on the generator-level $H_T$,$H^{gen}_T > 1000$ GeV.

For a selection of signal samples in era 2018 with $m_{\phi} = T_D = 3$ GeV, the relative efficiencies and the total efficiency with respect to the selection on the generator-level $H_T$,$H^{gen}_T > 1000$ GeV.

The $95\%$ CL cross section limit for all values of $m_{A'}$, $T_D$, $m_{\phi}$, and $m_S$ used in the scan.

The $95\%$ CL cross section limit for all values of $m_{A'}$, $T_D$, $m_{\phi}$, and $m_S$ used in the scan.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) and in the Majorana scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.0, 1.0, 0.0) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.0, 0.5, 0.5) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.0 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.5 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 2.0 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.0 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.5 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 2.0 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.