Pre-fit background composition of the SR$3\ell$ Prod. The table shows the event yields as opposed to just the percentages of the relevant background processes.

Post-fit plot of $H_\text{T}(\text{jets})$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $m(t_\text{SM}, b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ $t\bar{t}V$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}W$ from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}Z$ from the full fit to data.

Observed and expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)$ for different analyses and their statistical combination.

Observed and expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)$ for different analyses and their statistical combination.

Post-fit normalisation factors of free-floating background processes and the signal normalisation.

Post-fit predicted and observed yields in all $2\ell$SS signal and control regions. Pre-fit signal contributions for a signal cross section equivalent to $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)=0.1\,\%$ are given as well.

Post-fit predicted and observed yields in all $3\ell$ signal and control regions. Pre-fit signal contributions for a signal cross section equivalent to $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)=0.1\,\%$ are given as well.

Expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)$ for the nominal fit and alternative fit configurations. One contains the full phase space but only considers statistical uncertainties. Two other configurations consider the full set of systematic uncertainties, but only encompass one final state.

Expected and observed upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)$ and $|C_{u\phi}^{qt,tq}|$ for the full fit containing all systematic uncertainties.

Pre-fit plot of $H_\text{T}(\text{jets})$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Pre-fit plot of $m(t_\text{SM}, b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Pre-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Pre-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ $t\bar{t}V$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}W$ from the full fit to data.

Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}Z$ from the full fit to data.

Ranking of fit nuisance parameters according to their impact on the post-fit $tHu$ signal normalisation when fixed to $\pm1\sigma$

Ranking of fit nuisance parameters according to their impact on the post-fit $tHc$ signal normalisation when fixed to $\pm1\sigma$

Expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)$ for each individual final state and the full analysis.

Expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)$ for each individual final state and the full analysis.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 0.8$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0.8 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 1.6$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $1.6 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 2.4$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0.8 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 1.6$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $1.6 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 2.4$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon xsects from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.

Differential cross section as a function of k_max

Ratio of data/STARlight for differential cross sections as a function of k_max

Differential cross section as a function of k_min

Ratio of data/STARlight for differential cross sections as a function of k_min

Differential cross sections in $\alpha$ (acoplanarity) integrated over the full fiducial volume

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0<|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $10<|m_{\mu\mu}|<20$ GeV

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0.8<|y_{\mu\mu}|<1.6$

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $20<|m_{\mu\mu}|<40$ GeV

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $1.6<|y_{\mu\mu}|<2.4$

Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $40<|m_{\mu\mu}|<80$ GeV

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0<|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $10<|m_{\mu\mu}|<20$ GeV

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0.8<|y_{\mu\mu}|<1.6$

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $20<|m_{\mu\mu}|<40$ GeV

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $1.6<|y_{\mu\mu}|<2.4$

Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $40<|m_{\mu\mu}|<80$ GeV

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses combination, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Observed values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination for the generic model (free floating $\kappa_t$, $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_V$ and $\kappa_\tau$). The observed best-fit value of $\kappa_\lambda$ for the generic model is shifted slightly relative to the other models because of its correlation with the best-fit values of the $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_t$ and $\kappa_\tau$ parameters, which are slightly below, but compatible with unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses combination derived from the combined single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs analyses.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs analyses, with all other coupling modifiers fixed to unity.

Expected values of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the single-Higgs and double-Higgs analyses for the generic model (free floating $\kappa_t$, $\kappa_b$, $\kappa_V$ and $\kappa_\tau$).

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The observed constraint for the single- and double-Higgs combination for $\kappa_t$ values below unity is slightly less stringent than that for the single-Higgs fit alone due to the slightly higher best-fit value for this coupling modifier.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The observed constraint for the single- and double-Higgs combination for $\kappa_t$ values below unity is slightly less stringent than that for the single-Higgs fit alone due to the slightly higher best-fit value for this coupling modifier.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analysis. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analysis. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analysis. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analysis. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs and double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analyses. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from double-Higgs analyses. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours. The double-Higgs contours are shown for values of $\kappa_t$ smaller than 1.2.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analyses. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_\lambda$–$\kappa_t$ plane from single-Higgs analyses. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the sum of the ggF HH and VBF HH production cross-section from the bbbb, bb$\tau\tau$ and bb$\gamma\gamma$ decay channels, and their statistical combination. The value $m_H$=125.09 GeV is assumed when deriving the predicted SM cross section. The expected limit and the corresponding error bands are derived assuming the absence of the HH process with all nuisance parameters profiled to the observed data. The SM prediction together with its theoretical uncertainty is also shown (red vertical band).

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bbbb analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\tau\tau$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the HH to bb$\gamma\gamma$ analysis. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for the double-Higgs combination. All other coupling modifiers are fixed to their SM value.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$–$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% (95%) CL contours.

Observed constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$–$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 68% (95%) CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$-$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The solid lines show the 68% CL contours.

Expected constraints in the $\kappa_{2V}$-$\kappa_{V}$ plane from double-Higgs combination. The dashed lines show the 95% CL contours.

Measured normalised differential fiducial cross sections of $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for diphoton $|cos(\theta*)|$ are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and grey bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared with the prediction from the SuperChic v3.0 MC generator (solid line).

Measured normalised differential fiducial cross sections of $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for average photon transverse momentum are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and grey bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared with the prediction from the SuperChic v3.0 MC generator (solid line) with bands denoting the theoretical uncertainty.

Measured normalised differential fiducial cross sections of $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for average photon transverse momentum are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and grey bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared with the prediction from the SuperChic v3.0 MC generator (solid line).

Measured differential fiducial cross sections of $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for diphoton rapidity are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and grey bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared with the prediction from the SuperChic v3.0 MC generator (solid line) with bands denoting the theoretical uncertainty.

Measured normalised differential fiducial cross sections of $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ production in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV for diphoton rapidity are shown as points with error bars giving the statistical uncertainty and grey bands indicating the size of the total uncertainty. The results are compared with the prediction from the SuperChic v3.0 MC generator (solid line).

The 95% CL upper limit on the ALP cross section $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma\rightarrow a \rightarrow\gamma\gamma}$ for the $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow a \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ process as a function of ALP mass m$_{a}$. The observed upper limit is shown as a solid black line and the expected upper limit is shown by the dashed black line with its $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ standard deviation bands. The discontinuity at $m_{a}=70 GeV$ is caused by the increase of the mass-bin width which brings an increase in signal acceptance.

The 95% CL upper limit on the ALP coupling $1/\Lambda_{a}$ for the $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow a \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ process as a function of ALP mass m$_{a}$. The observed upper limit is shown as a solid black line and the expected upper limit is shown by the dashed black line with its $\pm1$ and $\pm2$ standard deviation bands. The discontinuity at $m_{a} = 70 GeV$ is caused by the increase of the mass-bin width which brings an increase in signal acceptance.

Fiducial cross section for light-by-light scattering

The expected and observed 95% confidence intervals for the anomalous coupling parameters defined in the EFT frame work. WV->lvJ channel.

The expected number of events passing the final event selection in the WW/WZ->lvjj channel, in each pT(jj) bin of the signal region (SR). The expected number of background and signal events are given, together with the number of events observed in data. The numbers correspond to Figures 7(a). The BSM numbers do not include the SM WV contribution, so the SM and BSM WV numbers should be added together. The numbers correspond to the raw event yields, not divided by the bin widths. The six bins in the SR have the following bin boundaries: (100, 200, 300, 400, 600, 800, +inf) GeV.

The expected number of events passing the final event selection in the WW/WZ->lvjj channel, in each pT(jj) bin of the sideband control region (CR). The expected number of background and signal events are given, together with the number of events observed in data. The numbers correspond to Figures 6 of auxiliary material. The BSM numbers do not include the SM WV contribution, so the SM and BSM WV numbers should be added together. The numbers correspond to the raw event yields, not divided by the bin widths. The four bins in the CR have the following bin boundaries: (100, 200, 300, 700, +inf) GeV.

The expected number of events passing the final event selection in the WW/WZ->lvJ channel, in each pT(J) bin of the signal region (SR). The expected number of background and signal events are given, together with the number of events observed in data. The numbers correspond to Figures 7(b). The BSM numbers do not include the SM WV contribution, so the SM and BSM WV numbers should be added together. The numbers correspond to the raw event yields, not divided by the bin widths. The six bins in the SR have the following bin boundaries: (100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, +inf) GeV. No control region is used for the WW/WZ->lvJ channel.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass under the assumption of BR(B->Wt)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass for an SU(2) singlet B.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the T quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the B quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

Observed and expected upper limit on the cross-section for $pp \to H^{++}H^{--}$ for a combination of partial branching ratios of $B(ee) = 30\%$, $B(e \mu ) = 40\%$, and $B( \mu \mu ) = 30\%$.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Expected 95% CL lower limit on the VLQ $T$ mass as a function of the decay branching ratios into $W b$ and $Ht$.

Observed 95% CL lower limit on the VLQ $T$ mass as a function of the decay branching ratios into $W b$ and $Ht$.