Distributions of the number of hits in the cluster (Nhits) for the CSC category in the out-of-time (OOT) region. The last histogram bin contains all overflow events.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass for the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ = 0.025 m. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$ for VLL Mass of 700 GeV. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

The 95% CL observed exclusion contour on the VLL production cross section as a function of the VLL mass and the pseudoscalar mean proper decay length c$\tau$. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the CSC category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Selection efficiencies in the DT category signal region (SR) for different signal hypothesis. The pseudoscalar mass is 2 GeV.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the number of muons in the long track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the m_{DTk; stopping power} in the long track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the number of electrons in the long track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the number of b-tagged jets in the short track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the number of jets in the short track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the hard missing transverse momentum in the short track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the number of muons in the short track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the m_{DTk; stopping power} in the short track final state.

Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the number of electrons in the short track final state.

Comparison between the data and post-fit SM background predictions for the 49 search regions in the global search region.

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6bt 10 cm model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6bt 10 cm model.

Limit in the mass plane of the T6bt 10 cm model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6bt 200 cm model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6bt 200 cm model.

Limit in the mass plane of the T6bt 200 cm model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6tb 10 cm model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6tb 10 cm model.

Limit in the mass plane of the T6tb 10 cm model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6tb 200 cm model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T6tb 200 cm model.

Limit in the mass plane of the T6tb 200 cm model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T5btbt 10 cm model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T5btbt 10 cm model.

Limit in the mass plane of the T5btbt 10 cm model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T5btbt 200 cm model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the T5btbt 200 cm model.

Limit in the mass plane of the T5btbt 200 cm model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the pure Wino model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the pure Wino model.

Limit in the mass plane of the pure Wino model

Expected 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the pure Higgsino model.

Observed cross 95% CL upper limit on the cross section in pb for the pure Higgsino model.

Limit in the mass plane of the pure Higgsino model

Cut flow table showing object-level efficiency at each stage of the track selection. The denominator of the efficiency is the number of chargino-matched tracks that have been reconstructed and satisfy the pT requirements, for which the chargino decays within the pixel detector volume; the numerator is the number of such tracks which also satisfy all requirements up to and including the associated criterion.

Cut flow table showing object-level efficiency at each stage of the track selection. The denominator of the efficiency is the number of chargino-matched tracks that have been reconstructed and satisfy the pT requirements, for which the chargino decays within the strip detector volume; the numerator is the number of such tracks which also satisfy all requirements up to and including the associated criterion.

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:pp -> chi1p-chi1m / chi10-chi1pmHiggsino model: ctau calculated as eq. 12 in arXiv:1703.09675.Individual events weighted according to the resulting decay lengths.

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:pp -> chi1p-chi1m / chi10-chi1pmPure Wino model: ctau calculated as eq. 61 in arXiv:1410.4549.Individual events weighted according to the resulting decay lengths.

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:pp -> chi20-chi1pm / chi1p-chi1m / chi10-chi1pm; dm(chi20 - chi10) = 2dm(chi1pm - chi10)Higgsino model: ctau calculated as eq. 12 in arXiv:1703.09675.Individual events weighted according to the resulting decay lengths.

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:pp -> chi20-chi1pm / chi1p-chi1m / chi10-chi1pm; dm(chi20 - chi10) = 2dm(chi1pm - chi10)Pure Higgsino model: ctau calculated as eq. 12 in arXiv:1703.09675.Individual events weighted according to the resulting decay lengths.

Percent efficiencies for sum of all SR bins, each SR bin, SR bin groups:

Efficiency as a function of transverse (x-y) decay length of the chargino for short track selection in Run 2.

Efficiency as a function of transverse (x-y) decay length of the chargino for long track selection in Run 2.

Efficiency as a function of transverse (x-y) decay length of the chargino for combined track selection in Run 2.

Cut flow for model T2tb (m(~b)=1 TeV, m(~chi10)=900 GeV, c#tau=10 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T1btbt (m(~g)=1.5 TeV, m(~chi10)=1.1 TeV, c#tau=200 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T2tb (m(~b)=1 TeV, m(~chi10)=900 GeV, c#tau=200 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T2tb (m(~b)=1 TeV, m(~chi10)=900 GeV, c#tau=200 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T1btbt (m(~g)=1.5 TeV, m(~chi10)=1.1 TeV, c#tau=200 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T1btbt (m(~g)=1.5 TeV, m(~chi10)=1.1 TeV, c#tau=10 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T2tb (m(~b)=1 TeV, m(~chi10)=900 GeV, c#tau=10 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Cut flow for model T1btbt (m(~g)=1.5 TeV, m(~chi10)=1.1 TeV, c#tau=10 cm), showing events passing each cut stage.

Comparison of the shapes extrapolated with a linear or quadratic extrapolation of the QCD contribution in the W+ signal region.

Comparison of the shapes extrapolated with a linear or quadratic extrapolation of the QCD contribution in the W- signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the transverse mass in the W+ signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the transverse mass in the W- signal region.

Post-fit distributions of the dimuon mass in the Z boson signal region.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W+ signal region in the transverse mass bin 12 < mT < 18 GeV. The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W- signal region in the transverse mass bin 12 < mT < 18 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W+ signal region in the transverse mass bin 102 < mT < 108 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (larger value) and quadratic (smaller value) function.

Example plot for the extrapolation of the QCD contribution from a region with inverted relative isolation criterion to the W- signal region in the transverse mass bin 102 < mT < 108 GeV.The values corresponding to the smallest relative muon isolation are extrapolated with a linear (smaller value) and quadratic (larger value) function.

The table compares theoretical and measured values of the product of the fiducial cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value. The relative uncertainties on the measured values are given separately with and without the contribution from the luminosity uncertainty.

The table compares theoretical and measured values of the product of the total cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value. The relative uncertainties on the measured values are given separately with and without the contribution from the luminosity uncertainty.

The table compares theoretical and measured ratios of the product of the fiducial cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value.

The table compares theoretical and measured ratios of the product of the total cross sections and branching fractions. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with three different PDF sets. All values are normalized to the corresponding measured value.

Comparison of the measured and theoretical cross sections for Z, W+, W-, and W production at different center-of-mass energies. The theoretical predictions are generated with DYTurbo in combination with the NNPDF 3.1 PDF set.

The nuclear suppression factor $S^{\mathrm{J}/\psi}$ of incoherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ meson photoproduction as a function of Bjorken $x$ in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $x$ values are evaluated at the centers of their corresponding rapidity ranges. The theoretical uncertainties are due to the uncertainties in the photon flux.

The ratio between incoherent and coherent $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ meson photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$, measured in PbPb ultra-peripheral collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$ values used correspond to the center of each rapidity range. The theoretical uncertainties is due to the uncertainties in the photon flux.

The total covariance matrix of the total incoherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The covariance matrix includes both the experimental and theoretical (photon flux) uncertainties. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The experimental covariance matrix of the total incoherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

The theoretical (photon flux) covariance matrix of the total incoherent photoproduction cross section as a function of photon-nuclear center-of-mass energy per nucleon $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$. The bins are ordered as increasing in $W_{\gamma \mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{Pb}}$.

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel c, $k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 1, panel d, $k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel a, $N_{ch}k_{2}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel b, $N^{2}_{ch}k_{3}$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 2, panel c, $\Gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel a, $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle / \left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel b, $k_{2}/k^{5\%}_{2} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel c, $k_{3}/k^{5\%}_{3} vs N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 3, panel d, $\Gamma/\Gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Second Supplementary Figure, Fig 6, panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Third Supplementary Figure, Fig 7, Normalized Event distribution of $N_{ch}$ / $N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel a, $\gamma$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Fourth Supplementary Figure, Fig 8, panel b, $\gamma/\gamma^{5\%}$ vs $N_{ch}/N^{5\%}_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel a, Correlation between FCal $\Sigma E_{T}$ and $N_{ch}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 1 panel b, Correlation between $[p_{T}]$ - $\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}$/$\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-1\%}$ in Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Pb+Pb collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 2 panel b, $N_{ch}$ /$N^{5\%}_{ch}$ vs Centrality [\%] for Xe+Xe collisions

Data from Auxiliary Fig 3 panel b, $[p_{T}]$ vs $N_{ch}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 5 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Pb+Pb collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Data from Auxiliary Figure 4, $\Delta p_{T}/\left\langle[p_{T}]\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ vs $\Delta N_{ch}/\left\langle N_{ch}\right\rangle_{0-0.5\%}$ for Xe+Xe collisions, 0.5 $ <p_{T}< $ 2 GeV/c, $|\eta|< $ 2.5

Normalized $\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{J/\psi}$ in $6.5<p_T<30.0\,GeV$ and $ 1 < y_{CM} < 1.935$ as functions of normalized $\text{N}^{{\text{corr.}}}_{\text{track}}$

Normalized $\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{J/\psi}$ in $6.5<p_T<30.0\,GeV$ and $ -2.865 < y_{CM} < 1.935$ as functions of normalized $\text{N}^{{\text{corr.}}}_{\text{track}}$

Normalized $\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{J/\psi}$ in $3.0<p_T<6.5\,GeV$ and $ -2.865 < y_{CM} < -2 $ as functions of normalized $\text{N}^{{\text{corr.}}}_{\text{track}}$

Normalized $\sigma_{\psi(2S)}/\sigma_{J/\psi}$ in $3.0<p_T<6.5\,GeV$ and $ 1 < y_{CM} < 1.935 $ as functions of normalized $\text{N}^{{\text{corr.}}}_{\text{track}}$

Breakdown of relative systematic uncertainties in the measured ${t\bar{t}}$ cross-section. The quoted uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit with a group of nuisance parameters fixed to their fitted values and subtracting in quadrature the resulting total uncertainty from the uncertainty of the complete fit. However, the total uncertainty is not the quadratic sum of the grouped impacts, as this approach neglects the correlation among the different groups.

The figure shows the measurement of the top quark pair production cross-section, $\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$, in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV, based on 1.9 nb$^{-1}$ of data.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ differential cross-sections in the $2\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the incluse jet phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ differential cross-sections in the $2e+\text{jets}$ region of the incluse jet phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the inclusive jet phase space for $1\mu+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the inclusive jet phase space for $1e+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the inclusive jet phase space for $2\mu+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the inclusive jet phase space for $2e+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ differential cross-sections in the $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase spaces, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ differential cross-sections in the $1\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ differential cross-sections in the $1e+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ differential cross-sections in the $2\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ differential cross-sections in the $2e+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the VBF phase space for $1\mu+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the VBF phase space for $1e+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the VBF phase space for $2\mu+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ in the VBF phase space for $2e+\text{jets}$. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $m_{jj}$ distribution in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions, for the $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $m_{jj}$ distribution in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions, for the $1\mu+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $m_{jj}$ distribution in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions, for the $1e+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $m_{jj}$ distribution in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions, for the $2\mu+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $m_{jj}$ distribution in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions, for the $2e+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $m_{jj}$ in the $1\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $m_{jj}$ in the $e+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $m_{jj}$ in the $2\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $m_{jj}$ in the $2e+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ distributions in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions for the $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ distributions in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions for the $1\mu+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ distributions in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions for the $1e+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ distributions in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions for the $2\mu+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ distributions in the VBF phase space compared with the SM predictions for the $2e+\text{jets}$ region. The middle panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties, while the lower panels show the relative contributions from different SM processes relative to the total MEPS@NLO prediction. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ in the $1\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ in the $1e+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ in the $2\mu+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

Comparison with SM predictions of the $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ ratios of the measured differential cross-sections for $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ in the $2e+\text{jets}$ region of the VBF phase space. The bottom panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with their uncertainties. Note that individually numbered PDF components ('dK_PDF_') in the uncertainty breakdown correspond to NNPDF Hessian eigenvectors. Uncertainty components labeled 'VV_dK' include Vjj processes.

The measured Z &rarr; &nu;&nu; cross-section, differential in p_T^Z in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured Z &rarr; &nu;&nu; cross-section, differential in p_T^Z in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured Z &rarr; &nu;&nu; cross-section, differential in p_T^Z in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured Z &rarr; &nu;&nu; cross-section, differential in p_T^Z in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured m_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured &Delta;&phi;_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) &gamma;+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2&mu;+jets (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured m_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured &Delta;&phi;_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) &gamma;+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2&mu;+jets (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured m_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured &Delta;&phi;_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) &gamma;+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2&mu;+jets (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured p_T^Z, p_T^W and p_T^&gamma; differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured m_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) &gamma;+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2&mu;+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured &Delta;&phi;_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) &gamma;+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2&mu;+jets (e) e+jets and (f) &mu;+jets. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red shading).

The measured &gamma;+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^&gamma; in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured &gamma;+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^&gamma; in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured &gamma;+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^&gamma; in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

The measured &gamma;+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^&gamma; in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) &Delta;&phi;_jj in the VBF phase space, compared with the SM predictions. The lower panels show the ratios of the predictions to the data, along with the data statistical uncertainties (black bars) and systematic uncertainties (red hatched band).

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 7a

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 7b

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 8a

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 8b

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 8c

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 8d

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 9a

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 9b

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 9c

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 9d

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 3b of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 3c of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 3d of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 3e of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 5b of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 5c of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 5d of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 7b of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 7c of Auxiliary Material

SM processes contributing to the fiducial SM predictions shown in Figure 7d of Auxiliary Material

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 7a) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 7a).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 7a) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 7a) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9a).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 7a) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9b).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8c) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8c).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8c) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8c) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8c) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8a) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8a).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8a) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8a) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8a) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8d) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8d).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8d) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3e (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8d) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9c).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8d) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9d).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8b) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8b).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8b) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8b) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 8b) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 2c (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 2c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 10a) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 10a).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 2d (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 2d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 10b) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, $\geq 1$ jet phase space (Figure 10b).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9a).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9b).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3d (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3d (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3d (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3b (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3b (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3b (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3e (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3e (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3e (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9c).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3e (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9d).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3c (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3c (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 3c (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4c (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4a (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4a (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4d (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4b (aux)) and $p_\text{T}^\text{recoil}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 4b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9a) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9a).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9a) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9b).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5d (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5d (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5b (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5b (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9c) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9c).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9c) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9d).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5c (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 5c (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 6c (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 6c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 6a (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 6a (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 10c) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 10c).

Statistical correlations between $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 6b (aux)) and $m_{\text jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 6b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9b) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $p_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9b).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7d (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7d (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7b (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9d) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 9d).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7c (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 7c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 8c (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $1\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 8c (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 8a (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 1e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 8a (aux)).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 10d) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ $2\mu$ + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 10d).

Statistical correlations between $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 8b (aux)) and $\Delta\phi_\text{jj}$ observable, $\text{R}_\text{miss}$ observable, $R_{miss}$ 2e + jets region, VBF phase space (Figure 8b (aux)).

Distributions of events for $\mathcal{D}_{\text{bkg}}$ observable in the $\gamma$-tagged (left) and Untagged (right) categories of the $\text{H}\to 4\ell$ candidate events. Observed events (black markers) and expected background estimates (solid histograms) from MC simulation (ZZ/Z$\gamma^*$) or control samples in data (Z+X) are shown. The $\gamma \text{H}$ signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}\times{\cal B}(H\to 4\ell)=1$ fb for either the $c_{\gamma\gamma}$ (solid) and $c_{z\gamma}$ (dashed) coupling hypothesis.

Distributions of events for $\mathcal{D}_{\text{bkg}}$ observable in the $\gamma$-tagged (left) and Untagged (right) categories of the $\text{H}\to 4\ell$ candidate events. Observed events (black markers) and expected background estimates (solid histograms) from MC simulation (ZZ/Z$\gamma^*$) or control samples in data (Z+X) are shown. The $\gamma \text{H}$ signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}\times{\cal B}(H\to 4\ell)=1$ fb for either the $c_{\gamma\gamma}$ (solid) and $c_{z\gamma}$ (dashed) coupling hypothesis.

The $M_{PNet}$ distributions for the number of observed events (black markers) compared with the backgrounds estimated in the fit to the data (filled histograms) in the $b \bar b$ channel. Fail (left), medium (middle) and tight (right) regions of the $\gamma$-tagged (lower) and Untagged (upper) categories are shown. The signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}{\cal B}( b\bar b)=10$ fb.

The $M_{PNet}$ distributions for the number of observed events (black markers) compared with the backgrounds estimated in the fit to the data (filled histograms) in the $b \bar b$ channel. Fail (left), medium (middle) and tight (right) regions of the $\gamma$-tagged (lower) and Untagged (upper) categories are shown. The signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}{\cal B}( b\bar b)=10$ fb.

The $M_{PNet}$ distributions for the number of observed events (black markers) compared with the backgrounds estimated in the fit to the data (filled histograms) in the $b \bar b$ channel. Fail (left), medium (middle) and tight (right) regions of the $\gamma$-tagged (lower) and Untagged (upper) categories are shown. The signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}{\cal B}( b\bar b)=10$ fb.

The $M_{PNet}$ distributions for the number of observed events (black markers) compared with the backgrounds estimated in the fit to the data (filled histograms) in the $b \bar b$ channel. Fail (left), medium (middle) and tight (right) regions of the $\gamma$-tagged (lower) and Untagged (upper) categories are shown. The signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}{\cal B}( b\bar b)=10$ fb.

The $M_{PNet}$ distributions for the number of observed events (black markers) compared with the backgrounds estimated in the fit to the data (filled histograms) in the $b \bar b$ channel. Fail (left), medium (middle) and tight (right) regions of the $\gamma$-tagged (lower) and Untagged (upper) categories are shown. The signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}{\cal B}( b\bar b)=10$ fb.

The $M_{PNet}$ distributions for the number of observed events (black markers) compared with the backgrounds estimated in the fit to the data (filled histograms) in the $b \bar b$ channel. Fail (left), medium (middle) and tight (right) regions of the $\gamma$-tagged (lower) and Untagged (upper) categories are shown. The signal contribution, stacked on top of background, is shown with an open histogram for an assumed cross section of $\sigma_{\gamma H}{\cal B}( b\bar b)=10$ fb.

Constraints on $\sigma_{\gamma H}$ from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The results are shown with only $c_{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}$ floating in the fit (blue) and with all four couplings allowed to float (black). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68\% and 95\% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\sigma_{\gamma H}$ from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The results are shown with only $c_{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}$ floating in the fit (blue) and with all four couplings allowed to float (black). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68\% and 95\% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\sigma_{\gamma H}$ from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The results are shown with only $c_{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}$ floating in the fit (blue) and with all four couplings allowed to float (black). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68\% and 95\% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\sigma_{\gamma H}$ from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The results are shown with only $c_{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}$ floating in the fit (blue) and with all four couplings allowed to float (black). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68\% and 95\% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on the square of $|c_{\gamma\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{\gamma\gamma}|$) and $|c_{z\gamma}|$ (or $|\tilde{c}_{z\gamma}|$) from the combination of the $H\to b \bar b$ and $4\ell$ channels. The other couplings are either fixed to the null SM expectation (blue) or are left floating in the fit (red). Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) likelihood scans are shown. The dashed horizontal lines show the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.

Constraints on $\kappa_{u}$, $\kappa_{d}$, $\kappa_{s}$, and $\kappa_{c}$ are shown using the $H\to 4\ell$ channel.In scenario one (black), all couplings except the one being shown are fixed at their SM values. In scenario two (blue), the Yukawa couplings for the three other light quarks are left unconstrained, and BSM contributions are allowed: $\kappa_{ZZ}^2 \le 1$ and $\Gamma^\textrm{BSM}_H \ge 0$. Both observed (solid) and expected (dashed) constraints are presented. The dashed horizontal lines indicate the 68% and 95% CL intervals.