The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.

Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.

Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.

Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the ggF-MVA-low category.

Distribution of the four-lepton invariant mass in the four-lepton final state for the VBF-MVA-enriched category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the ggF-enriched mumuvv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched eevv category.

Distribution of the transverse mass in the llvv final state for the VBF-enriched mumuvv category.

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the ggF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for the VBF production mode

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 1% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 5% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 10% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section for the ggF production mode times branching ratio as a function of the heavy resonance mass for an additional heavy scalar assuming a width of 15% of its mass

The upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section times branching ratio for a KK graviton produced with k/M_{PI} = 1

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of $p_T$ in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of centrality in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $v_3$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Prompt $D^0$ meson $\Delta v_2$ as a function of rapidity in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02~TeV$.

Measured fiducial cross sections for the $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}$ and $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{X}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes, and for the $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{L}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{X}}$ and $\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}\mathrm{W}^\pm_{\mathrm{T}}$ processes for the helicity eigenstates defined in the parton-parton center-of-mass frame. The combination of the statistical and systematic uncertainties is shown. $\mathcal{B}$ is the branching fraction for $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} \rightarrow \ell \nu \ell' \nu$. The fiducial region is defined by requiring two same-sign leptons with $p_{T}>20$, $|\eta|<2.5$, and $m_{ll}>20$, and two jets with $m_{jj}>500$ and $|\Delta \eta_{jj}|>2.5$. The jets at generator level are clustered from stable particles, excluding neutrinos, using the anti-kt clustering algorithm with R = 0.4, and are required to have $p_{T}>50$ and $|\eta|<4.7$. The jets within $\Delta R<0.4$ of the selected charged leptons are not included. The theoretical predictions including the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}\alpha^6)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha^7)$ corrections to the \MGvATNLO LO cross sections, as described in arXiv:2009.09429, are also shown. The theoretical uncertainties include statistical, PDF, and LO scale uncertainties.

Results of elliptic flow, corrected for short range correlations, for prompt neutral D mesons, as a function of multiplicity for $|y_{lab}|< 1$, with 6$ < p_{T} < $8 GeV in pp collisions at 13 TeV.

Results of elliptic flow, corrected for short range correlations, for prompt neutral D mesons, as a function of multiplicity for $|y_{lab}|< 1$, with 2$ < p_{T} < $4 GeV in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV.

Results of elliptic flow, corrected for short range correlations, for prompt neutral D mesons, as a function of multiplicity for $|y_{lab}|< 1$, with 4$ < p_{T} < $6 GeV in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV.

Results of elliptic flow, corrected for short range correlations, for prompt neutral D mesons, as a function of multiplicity for $|y_{lab}|< 1$, with 6$ < p_{T} < $8 GeV in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV.

Results of elliptic flow, corrected for short range correlations, for nonprompt neutral D mesons, as a function of transverse momenta for $|y_{lab}|< 1$, with $185 \leq N^{offline}_{trk} < 250$ in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV.

The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2016 in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The total post-fit and pre-fit uncertainties on the background prediction are also reported.

The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2017 in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The total post-fit and pre-fit uncertainties on the background prediction are also reported.

The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2018 in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The total post-fit and pre-fit uncertainties on the background prediction are also reported.

The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SB regions for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The total post-fit and pre-fit uncertainties on the background prediction are also reported.

The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SR region for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH and VBF modes with mass of 125.38 GeV, along with the total post-fit and pre-fit uncertainties on the background prediction, are also reported.

The observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the ggH category, with dimuon mass between 110–150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions for ggH, VBF, and other signal processes are also reported. The background uncertainty is obtained by summing in quadrature the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples with those arising from experimental and theoretical sources of systematic uncertainty.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ggH-cat1 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ggH-cat2 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ggH-cat3 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ggH-cat4 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ggH-cat5 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

The observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the ttH hadronic category, with dimuon mass between 110–150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions from different production modes of the Higgs boson are also reported. The background uncertainty is obtained by summing in quadrature the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples with those arising from experimental and theoretical sources of systematic uncertainty.

The observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the ttH leptonic category, with dimuon mass between 110–150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions from different production modes of the Higgs boson are also reported. The background uncertainty is obtained by summing in quadrature the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples with those arising from experimental and theoretical sources of systematic uncertainty.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ttHhad-cat1 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ttHhad-cat2 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ttHhad-cat3 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ttHlep-cat1 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ttHlep-cat2 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

The observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the WH leptonic category, with dimuon mass between 110–150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions from different production modes of the Higgs boson are also reported. The background uncertainty is obtained by summing in quadrature the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples with those arising from experimental and theoretical sources of systematic uncertainty.

The observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the ZH leptonic category, with dimuon mass between 110–150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions from different production modes of the Higgs boson are also reported. The background uncertainty is obtained by summing in quadrature the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples with those arising from experimental and theoretical sources of systematic uncertainty.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the WH-cat1 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the WH-cat2 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the WH-cat3 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ZH-cat1 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed in the ZH-cat2 subcategory. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Observed local p-values as a function of the Higgs boson mass hypothesis extracted from the combined fit across event categories as well as from each individual production category.

Expected local p-values as a function of the Higgs boson mass hypothesis extracted from the combined fit across event categories as well as from each individual production category. They are calculated using the background-only expectation obtained from the S+B fit and injecting a signal with mass of 125.38 GeV and strenght of one.

Signal strength modifiers measured for a Higgs boson with mass of 125.38 GeV in each production category as well as from the combined fit.

Scan of the profiled likelihood ratio as a function of $\mu_{ggH,t\overline{t}H}$ and $\mu_{VBF,VH}$.

The 68% CL contour for the profiled likelihood scan as a function of $\mu_{ggH,t\overline{t}H}$ and $\mu_{VBF,VH}$.

The 95% CL contour for the profiled likelihood scan as a function of $\mu_{ggH,t\overline{t}H}$ and $\mu_{VBF,VH}$.

The mass distribution for the weighted combination of VBF-SB and VBF-SR events. Each event is weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, calculated as a function of the mass-decorrelated DNN output. The total post-fit and pre-fit uncertainties on the background prediction, along with the best fit signal contribution, are also reported.

Comparison between the data and the total background extracted for the S/(S+B) weighted combination of all event categories. The one and two standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The best fit signal contribution with mass of 125.38 GeV is also reported.

Observed and expected local p-values as a function of the Higgs boson mass hypothesis extracted from the combined fit performed on data recorded at centre-of-mass energies of 7, 8, and 13 TeV. The expected p-values are calculated using the background-only expectation obtained from the S+B fit and injecting a signal with mass of 125.38 GeV and strenght of one.

The observed profile likelihood ratio as a function of $\kappa_{\mu}$ for a Higgs boson mass of 125.38 GeV, obtained from a combined fit with Ref.[10] in the resolved $\kappa$-framework. The best fit value for $\kappa_{\mu}$ is 1.07 and the corresponding observed 68% CL interval is $0.85 < \kappa_{\mu} < 1.29$.

The best fit estimates for the reduced coupling modifiers extracted for fermions and weak bosons from the resolved $\kappa$-framework compared to their corresponding prediction from the SM. The error bars represent 68% CL intervals for the measured parameters.

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section for the combined 4e, 2e2µ, and 4µ decay channels as a function of the invariant mass of the ZZ system

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section for the combined 4e, 2e2µ, and 4µ decay channels as a function of azimuthal separation of the two Z bosons

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section for the combined 4e, 2e2µ, and 4µ decay channels as a function of ∆R separation of the two Z bosons

Measured fiducial cross section for each data sample and combined. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is experimental systematic, and the third is associated with the integrated luminosity.

Measured total σ(pp → ZZ) cross section for each data sample and combined. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is experimental systematic, the third is theoretical systematic. The fourth uncertainty is associated with the integrated luminosity.

Expected and observed one-dimensional 95% CL limits on aTGC parameters. The corresponding constrains on EFT parameters are estimated using the transformation from Ref. [65].

Expected and observed one-dimensional 95% CL limits on aTGC parameters. The corresponding constrains on EFT parameters are estimated using the transformation from Ref. [65].

Measured fraction of events after unfolding for $N_J = 0, 1, \geq 2$ jets. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second combines systematic uncertainties from the response matrix and from the background subtraction.

Expected and observed 68% and 95% confidence intervals on the measurement of the Wilson coefficients associated with the three CP-preserving, dimension-6 operators.

Expected and observed 68% and 95% confidence intervals on the measurement of the Wilson coefficients associated with the three CP-preserving, dimension-6 operators.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the dilepton invariant mass.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the dilepton invariant mass.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the leading lepton $p_T$.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the leading lepton $p_T$.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the trailing lepton $p_T$.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the trailing lepton $p_T$.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the dilepton azimuthal angular separation.

Measured normalized differential cross sections with respect to the dilepton azimuthal angular separation.

Fiducial cross section for the production of $W^+W^−$ +0-jets as the $p_T$ threshold for jets is varied. The fiducial region is defined by two opposite-sign leptons with $p_T > 20$GeV and | η | < 2.5 excluding the products of τ lepton decay, and $m_{\ell\ell} > 20$GeV, $p_T^{\ell\ell} > 30$GeV, and $p_T^{\mathrm{miss}} > 30$GeV. Jets must have $p_T$ above the stated threshold, | η | < 4.5, and be separated from each of the two leptons by ∆R > 0.4. The total uncertainty is reported.

Fiducial cross section for the production of $W^+W^-$ +0-jets as the $p_T$ threshold for jets is varied. The fiducial region is defined by two opposite-sign leptons with $p_T > 20$GeV and |$\eta$| < 2.5 excluding the products of tau lepton decay, and $m_{\ell\ell} > 20$GeV, $p_T^{\ell\ell} > 30$GeV, and $p_T^{\mathrm{miss}} > 30$GeV. Jets must have $p_T$ above the stated threshold, |$\eta$| < 4.5, and be separated from each of the two leptons by dR > 0.4. The total uncertainty is reported.