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 → νν 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) Δφ_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 → νν 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) Δφ_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 → νν 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) Δφ_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 → νν 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) Δφ_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^γ differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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 Δφ_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) γ+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2μ+jets (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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 Δφ_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) γ+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2μ+jets (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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 Δφ_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) γ+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2μ+jets (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the inclusive jet phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets,(e) e+jets and (f) μ+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^γ differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets, (b) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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) γ+jets, (c) 2e+jets, (d) 2μ+jets, (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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 Δφ_jj differential cross-sections in the VBF phase spaces compared with the SM predictions: (a) p_T^miss+jets (b) γ+jets (c) 2e+jets (d) 2μ+jets (e) e+jets and (f) μ+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 γ+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^γ in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) Δφ_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 γ+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^γ in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) Δφ_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 γ+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^γ in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) Δφ_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 γ+jets cross-section, differential in p_T^γ in the (a) single jet and (b) VBF phase spaces, and differential in (c) m_jj and (d) Δφ_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)).

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the inclusive ggF HH production from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ, bb̄bb̄, multilepton and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on μ_ggF^HH (μ_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the ±1σ and ±2σ bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength for the VBF HH production from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ, bb̄bb̄, multilepton and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. When deriving the limit on μ_ggF^HH (μ_VBF^HH), the VBF (ggF) HH production cross-section is fixed to the SM predicted value for m_H=125 GeV. The expected limit, along with the ±1σ and ±2σ bands, is calculated under the assumption of no HH process and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the inclusive ggF and VBF HH production cross-section from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ, bb̄bb̄, multilepton and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss decay channels, and their statistical combination. The Higgs boson mass is set to 125 GeV when deriving the predicted SM cross-section (red band). The expected limits, along with the ±1σ and ±2σ bands, are calculated under the assumption of no Higgs boson pair production and with all NPs profiled to the observed data.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_\lambda$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\ell\ell+E_\text{T}^{\text{miss}}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for Multilepton.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter for combination.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95% CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of (a) the inclusive ggF and VBF processes as a function of κ_λ, for the bb̄γγ (purple), bb̄τ⁺τ^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb̄bb̄ (blue) and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no HH production. The red line shows the theory prediction for the ggF and VBF HH production cross-section as a function of κ_λ. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed (solid lines) and expected (dashed lines) 95% CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross-sections of the VBF process as a function of κ_2V, for the bb̄γγ (purple), bb̄τ⁺τ^- (green), multilepton (cyan), bb̄bb̄ (blue) and bb̄ℓℓ+E_T^miss (brown) decay channels and their combination (black). The expected limits assume no VBF HH production. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The ggF HH production cross-section is assumed to be as predicted by the SM. The red line shows the predicted VBF HH cross-section as a function of κ_2V. The bands surrounding the red cross-section lines indicate the theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross-section.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{gghh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Observed value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\tau\tau$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$.

Expected value of the test statistic (-2ln$\Lambda$), as a function of the $c_{tthh}$ parameter for combination.

Observed and expected 95% CL combined upper limits on the cross-section for the SM and seven BSM HEFT benchmarks (arXiv:2304.01968 [hep-ph]) in the ggF process, describing representative signal kinematics and m_HH shape features obtained by varying multiple HEFT coefficients. The expected limits from the bb̄τ⁺τ^-, bb̄γγ and bb̄bb̄ decay channels are presented as well. Theoretical predictions, estimated using specific sets of coefficient values defined in the benchmarks, are shown as red cross dots.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $p_{T,jet}^{lead}$ region of $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

<b>Note: in the paper, uncertainties are given in relative terms. The HEPData table contains absolute numbers. The original data file, containing relative uncertainties as in the paper, is available via the 'Resources' button above.</b> Differential cross sections, $d\sigma/d\Delta\phi$, in the $Q^{2}$ region of $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ for $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as obtained from the data, ARIADNE MC simulations, and perturbative calculations at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s})$ and $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^{2})$ accuracy. Other details are as in the caption to Table 1.

QED correction factors for inclusive measurement, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 1$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 2$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

QED correction factors for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$ and $N_{jet} \geq 3$, as estimated with RAPGAP.

The correlation matrix for the inclusive measurement. The azimuthal correlation angle $\Delta\phi$ of each lepton--leading-jet pair was assigned a bin ID between 0 to 59 segmented uniformly from 0 to $\pi$. This bin ID was offset by multiples of 60 based on the jet multiplicity so that the pair from a single jet event, as suggested by the MC simulation, was assigned a value between 0 to 59, dijet events were given 60 to 119, trijet 120 to 179, and four or more jets 180 to 239.

The correlation matrix for $2.5 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 7 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $7 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 12 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $12 \;\mathrm{GeV} < p_{T,jet}^{lead} < 30 \;\mathrm{GeV}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $10 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $50 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

The correlation matrix for $100 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2} < Q^{2} < 350 \;\mathrm{GeV}^{2}$. Other details are as in the caption to Fig. 13.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H_{5}^{\pm\pm}) \times \mathcal{B}(H_{5}^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit.

Expected and observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for $\sin \theta_{{\mathrm{H}}}$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$. The inner (outer) band represents the $68\%$ ($95\%$) confidence interval around the median expected limit. The exclusion limits are shown up to $m_{\mathrm{H_5}} = 1500$ GeV. The limits obtained separately in the $H_{5}^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}Z$ and $H_{5}^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm}$ channels are also shown for comparison. The hatched region covers the parameter space where the intrinsic widths of the $H_{5}^{\pm}$ and $H_{5}^{\pm\pm}$ bosons would be larger than $10\%$ of $m_{\mathrm{H_5}}$ and is disfavoured in the GM model.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\mathrm{Pb}}$ for prompt $D^0$ mesons in intervals of $p_\mathrm{T}$ and $y^\ast$ for $p_\mathrm{T} < 10\,\mathrm{GeV}/c$ in backward rapidity regions.

Forward-backward production ratio $R_\mathrm{FB}$ for prompt $D^0$ mesons as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$, integrated over $2.5 < |y^\ast| < 4.0$.

Jet-particle $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in high-multiplicity (0$-$10%) p$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of associated particles is larger than 1.5 GeV/$\it{c}$

Inclusive charged-particle $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 20$-$60% semi-central Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV

Jet-particle $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in high-multiplicity (20$-$60%) Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of associated particles is larger than 2 GeV/$\it{c}$

Jet-particle $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in high-multiplicity (20$-$60%) Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of associated particles is larger than 3 GeV/$\it{c}$

Jet-particle $v_{2}$ as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in semi-central (20$-$60%) Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of associated particles is larger than 5 GeV/$\it{c}$

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a selection of models targeted in the CalR+W channel for (a) WALP models and (b) WHS models with a SM Higgs boson mediator.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a selection of models targeted in the CalR+W channel for (a) WALP models and (b) WHS models with a SM Higgs boson mediator.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on the cross-section times branching fraction as a function of c&tau; for a variety of models probed by the CalR+Z channel for (a) ZALP models, (b) ZHS models with the SM Higgs boson as a mediator, and (c) HZZ_d models.

Summary of the observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on C_G as a function of C_W for a variety of ALP mass hypotheses probed by the CalR+R and Cal+Z channels for (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models.

Summary of the observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) upper limits at the 95&percnt; CL on C_G as a function of C_W for a variety of ALP mass hypotheses probed by the CalR+R and Cal+Z channels for (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models.

Regions in the ALP mass versus its coupling to gluons scaled by the ALP energy scale g_agg=4C_G/f_a excluded at 95&percnt; CL, for C_W=1, C_W=0.5, C_W=0.3 and C_W=0.15, in the (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models. The contours are obtained by interpolating between the exclusions for different LLP masses considered in the analysis, taking the logical union of the regions excluded for each mass.

Regions in the ALP mass versus its coupling to gluons scaled by the ALP energy scale g_agg=4C_G/f_a excluded at 95&percnt; CL, for C_W=1, C_W=0.5, C_W=0.3 and C_W=0.15, in the (a) WALP and (b) ZALP models. The contours are obtained by interpolating between the exclusions for different LLP masses considered in the analysis, taking the logical union of the regions excluded for each mass.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for HS signals in the CalR+2J channel for samples with mediator masses (a) below 400 GeV and (b) equal to or above 400 GeV. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for HS signals in the CalR+2J channel for samples with mediator masses (a) below 400 GeV and (b) equal to or above 400 GeV. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for WALP and WHS signals in the CalR+W channel for (a) the WALP selection, (b) the CalR+W low-E_T selection and (c) the CalR+W high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal efficiencies as a function of c&tau; for ZALP, HZZ_d and ZHS signals in the CalR+Z channel for (a, b) the CalR+Z low-E_T selection and (c, d) the CalR+Z high-E_T selection. The extrapolation of efficiencies to new mean LLP lifetimes is done via the event reweighting procedure. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the CalR+2J channel for the benchmark HS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 16), (b) (125, 35), (c) (125, 55), (d) (200, 50), (e) (400, 100), (f) (600, 150), (g) (600, 275), (h) (1000, 275), and (i) (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction in the WHS channel for the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (60, 5) and (60, 15), (b) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (c) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (d) (600, 50), (600, 150), and (600, 275), (e) (1000, 50), (1000, 275), and (1000, 475) GeV

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the low-E_T WHS selection for benchmark WHS models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_S) (a) (125, 16), (b) (600, 150) GeV, and the WALP selection for WALP models with (c) m_ALP = 1 GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

95&percnt; CL expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits on the branching fraction in the CalR+Z channel for benchmark HZZ_d models with mass pairs (m_&Phi;, m_{Z_d}) (a) (400, 100) and (400, 200), (b) (600, 150) and (600, 400). The ZHS sample is shown for masses (m_&Phi;, m_S) in GeV: (c) (200, 50) and (200, 80), (d) (400, 100) and (400, 175), (e) (600, 50), (600, 150) and (600, 275), (f) (1000, 50), (1000, 275) and (1000, 475) GeV.

Correlation matrix of the unfolding uncertainty between the inclusive-jet measurement and the previous dijet measurement. Correlations are given in percent.

Summary of different determinations of $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ at NNLO or higher order, adapted from PDG, see references therein. The red points are included in the PDG world average. The averages from each sub-field are shown as yellow bands and the world average as a blue band. A recent measurement from CMS using jet cross sections and the latest determination from HERAPDF, which are not yet included in the world average, are shown in green. The current determination, assuming half-correlated and half-uncorrelated scale uncertainties, is shown in black.

Value of the strong coupling $\alpha_s(\mu^2)$ as a function of the scale $\mu$. The data points indicate determinations from measurements that were performed close to the indicated scale. The uncertainties represent the full uncertainty of each determination. All depicted results were obtained at least at NNLO. They are based on data from $e^+e^-$, $ep$ and $pp$ collisions, as well as from $\tau$ lepton decays and quarkonium states. The solid blue line shows the PDG world average. Also shown are the $\alpha_s(M_Z^2)$ values corresponding to each data point.

Double-differential inclusive-jet cross sections using the alternative treatment of QED radiation, as explained in <a href="https://inspirehep.net/literature/2714089">the accompanying thesis</a> (section 9.5.3 and table C.7) and <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18136">arXiv:2405.18136</a>. The alternative treatment affects the central value of the cross sections, $\sigma$, the QED correction factors $c_\text{QED}$ and their uncertainty and the sum of all uncorrelated uncertainties $\delta_\text{uncor}$. All other uncertainties and corrections are identical to Tables 1 and 2 and should be taken from there.