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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distributions of the $\mathrm{NN^{SvsB}}$ output for data and the expected background after the likelihood fit in the $SR_{cQu --}$ signal region. The post-fit background expectations are shown as filled histograms, the combined pre-fit background expectations are shown as dashed lines. The signal distribution using the Wilson coefficient values $c_{tu}^{(1)}=0.04$, $c_{Qu}^{(1)}=0.1$, $c_{Qu}^{(8)}=0.1$ is shown with a dotted line, normalized to the same number of events as the background.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the five 2$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Summary of the observed and predicted number of events in the four 3$\ell$ control regions. The background prediction is shown after the combined likelihood fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis across all control regions and signal regions. The uncertainties in the total yields are smaller than the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties in the individual contributions due to anti-correlations resulting from the likelihood fit. Int Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the inner detector, while Mat Conv refers to events with photon conversions in the detector material. QMisID refers to events with charge-misidentified lepton.

Comparison of the observed limits on the three WCs to the limit obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair [JHEP10(2015)150]. The cross-section limits from that analysis are converted to the limits on the WCs by using the fitted EFT parametrization. The bounds on the WCs are shown at the 68$\%$ CL (solid) and/or 95$\%$ CL (dashed) levels. For the ATLAS Run~1 analysis only the bounds at 95$\%$ CL are available. The vertical bar represents the SM prediction. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$.

Observed lower limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the scale of new physics $\Lambda$ for Wilson coefficient values of 0.01, 1 and $4\pi^2$. The limits are compared with the limits obtained by the ATLAS Run~1 analysis of events with $b$-tagged jets and a same-sign lepton pair.

Observed and expected limits at 95$\%$ confidence level on the cross-section of $\sigma(pp \rightarrow tt)$.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{tu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

2D likelihood scans of the Wilson coefficients $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$ versus $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient pair.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{tu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(1)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

1D-likelihood scan for $c_{Qu}^{(8)}$. The observed and expected limits at 68\% and 95\% confidence level (CL) can be read off by finding the intersection of the likelihood scan curve with the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ lines. The new-physics scale is set to $\Lambda = 1 \, \text{TeV}$. In the table the $2\Delta$NLL values are shown which correspond to the minimized negative log likelihood for a given Wilson coefficient value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covariance for full matrix measurement all bins from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Results for full matrix measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for full matrix measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Results for full matrix measurement all bins from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Covariance for full matrix measurement all bins from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Results for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Covariance for full matrix measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Results for full matrix measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for full matrix measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $D$ measurement inclusive from $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $D$ measurement inclusive from $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $D$ measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $D$ measurement inclusive from $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement inclusive in $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $D$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Covariance for $D$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Results for $D$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Covariance for $D$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $m(t\bar{t})$ fit

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement all bins from from $p_{T}(t)$ fit

Results for $D$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $D$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $m(t\bar{t})$ for $|cos(\theta)| < 0.4$

Results for $D$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $D$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Results for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Covariance for $\tilde{D}$ measurement differential in $p_{T}(t)$

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

The cutflow table for $N1$ and $N2$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 0.1 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SC = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

The cutflow table for $N3$ signal samples for different mass points. The samples consist of both $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ final states in equal ratio. Each sample is normalized to a total cross-section of 10 pb. The abbreviations used in the table are, SS = Same Charge, SF = Same Flavor.

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with electron neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with muon neutrinos

Expected and observed upper limits on the strength of HNL mixing with tau neutrinos

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{+}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for e final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for e final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_T$ in the $W^{-}$ signal selection for mu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to\tau\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for ee final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for mumu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 5TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for ee final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Distributions of $m_{ll}$ in the Z signal selection for mumu final states for the pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13TeV after the maximum likelihood fit. The EW backgrounds include the contributions from DY, $W\to l\nu$, and diboson processes.

Figure 4 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 13TeV

Figure 5 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 5.02TeV

Figure 6 Fiducial cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes between 13TeV and 5.02TeV

Figure 7 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 13TeV

Figure 8 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes at 5.02TeV

Figure 9 Total cross sections and ratios for $W\to\ell\nu$ and $Z\to\ell\ell$ processes between 13TeV and 5.02TeV

Summary of theoretical predictions of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at ppbar collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at UA1 and UA2.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at D0.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at CDF.

Summary of theoretical predictions of the total inclusive cross sections for W boson production times leptonic branching fractions at pp collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at pp collisions.

Summary of experimental measurements of the total inclusive cross sections for W and Z boson production times leptonic branching fractions at CMS.