Correlations of the ttH signal-strength modifiers in the different Higgs pT bins of the STXS measurement.

Observed and expected upper 95% CL limit on the tH signal strength modifier $\mu_{tH}$ with $\mu_{ttH}=1$ for different channels and years, where the uncertainties are uncorrelated between the channels and years, and in their combination. The one and two standard deviation confidence intervals on the expected limit are also listed (sigma).

Likelihood-ratio test statistic as a function of the ttH and tH signal strength modifiers $\mu_{ttH}$ and $\mu_{tH}$. The observed best fit point is $(\mu_{tH}, \mu_{ttH}) = (-3.83, +0.35)$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ and $\kappa_{V}$. The observed best fit point is $(\kappa_{t}, \kappa_{V}) = (+0.59, +1.40)$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ for $\kappa_{V}=1$. The observed best fit point is $\kappa_{t} = +0.54$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{t}$ with $\kappa_{V}=1$. The observed best fit point is $(\kappa_{t}, \tilde{\kappa}_{t}) = (+0.53, 0.00)$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $f_{CP}$. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1. The observed best fit point is $f_{CP} = 0.00$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\cos(\alpha)$. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1. The observed best fit point is $\cos(\alpha) = +1.00$.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\kappa_{t}$ and $\tilde{\kappa}_{t}$ with $\kappa_{V}=1$, in the $H \rightarrow bb$, $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $H\rightarrow ZZ$, $H\rightarrow WW$, and $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channels and in their combination.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $f_{CP}$, in the $H \rightarrow bb$, $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $H\rightarrow ZZ$, $H\rightarrow WW$, and $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channel and in their combination. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1.

Observed and expected likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $\cos(\alpha)$, in the $H \rightarrow bb$, $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, $H\rightarrow ZZ$, $H\rightarrow WW$, and $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay channels and in their combination. The overall modifier of the top-Higgs coupling strength is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, and $\kappa_{V}$ is set to 1.

non prompt $\psi(2S)$ $\lambda_\theta$

The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{t}\varphi}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{tb}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{bW}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{t}}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{3}, \text{c}_{\varphi\text{Q}}^{-}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.

Negative log-likelihood difference in $\text{c}_{\text{tW}}, \text{c}_{\text{tZ}}$ where the other Wilson coefficients are fixed to 0.