Groomed relative transverse momentum, $k_{\text{T,g}}$, spectra measured in pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources ("unfold"), no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed relative transverse momentum, $k_{\text{T,g}}$, spectra measured in 30--50% Pb-Pb collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources ("unfold,bkg,non_closure"), no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed relative transverse momentum, $k_{\text{T,g}}$, spectra measured in 0--10% Pb-Pb collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources ("unfold,bkg,non_closure"), no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 30--50% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Dynamical grooming $a = 1.0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 0--10% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Dynamical grooming $a = 1.0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 30--50% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Groomed $k_{\text{T,g}}$ ratio of 0--10% Pb-Pb to pp collisions. $60 < p_{\text{T,ch jet}}^{\text{}} < 80\:\text{GeV}/c$, Soft drop $z_{\text{cut}} = 0.2$, $\beta = 0$ For the "trk eff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$) denote correlation across bins. For the remaining sources "(unfold,bkg,non_closure)", no correlation information is specified (i.e. $\pm$ is always used). In the publication, the quadrature sum of all sources of systematic uncertainty is reported, neglecting the sign information reported here.

Total invariant mass distribution $m_{4\ell}$ in Signal Region 2.

Selected events in the ($m_{4\ell}$, $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle$) plane, SR1

Selected events in the ($m_{4\ell}$, $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle$) plane, SR2

Expected background events in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR1

Expected signal shape for $(m_{S}, m_{Z_d}) = (110~\text{GeV},30~\text{GeV}$) in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR1. The signal distributions are normalized to unit volume.

Expected background events in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR2. Events that satisfy $|m_{ab,cd} - m_Z| < 8~\text{GeV}$ are removed by the Z-veto requirement, however not all events lying behind the mask in the plot, corresponding to $\langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle$ values between 83 and 99 GeV, are deleted.

Expected signal shape for $(m_{S}, m_{Z_{d}}) = (750~\text{GeV},150~\text{GeV}$) in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane, SR2. The signal distributions are normalized to unit volume. Events that satisfy $|m_{ab,cd} - m_Z| < 8~\text{GeV}$ are removed by the Z-veto requirement, however not all events lying behind the mask in the plot, corresponding to $\langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle$ values between 83 and 99 GeV, are deleted.

Expected 95% CL limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$, SR1

Observed 95% CL limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$, SR1

Observed / Expected 95% CL limit ratio in SR1

Expected 95% CL limit on $\mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$ with Z-veto, SR2

Observed 95% CL limit on $\sigma \mathcal{B}(S\rightarrow Z_{d}Z_{d} \rightarrow 4\ell)$ with Z-veto, SR2

Observed / Expected 95% CL limit ratio with Z-veto, SR2

Local $p_0$-values in the ($m_{S}, m_{Z_{d}}$) plane, SR1

Local $p_0$-values in the ($m_{S}, m_{Z_{d}}$) plane, SR2 with Z-veto applied

Observed data in Signal Region 1 in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane.

Observed data in Signal Region 2 in the $(m_{4\ell}, \langle m_{\ell\ell}\rangle)$ plane. Events that satisfy $|m_{ab,cd} - m_Z| < 8~\text{GeV}$ are removed by the Z-veto requirement, however not all events lying behind the mask in the plot, corresponding to <m_ll> values between 83 and 99 GeV, are deleted.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4e$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 1 in the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4e$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 2 in the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the average dilepton mass $\left\langle m_{\ell\ell}\right\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\left(m_{ab} + m_{cd}\right)$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4e$ final state. The SR1 requirement $m_{4\ell} < 115~\text{GeV}$ is not applied here.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 1 in the $2e2\mu$ final state. The SR1 requirement $m_{4\ell} < 115~\text{GeV}$ is not applied here.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 1 in the $4\mu$ final state. The SR1 requirement $m_{4\ell} < 115~\text{GeV}$ is not applied here.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4e$ final state.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 2 in the $2e2\mu$ final state.

Distributions of the total invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ for Signal Region 2 in the $4\mu$ final state.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of the universal coupling constant and the $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma/m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 50%, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the $T$ quark mass as a function of the relative resonance width ($\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}}$) and the relative coupling parameter $\xi_W$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The expected limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.3. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.5. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown. The $HtZt$ analysis is only included in the limit calculation for $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ < 2.1 TeV.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the total cross-section σ($pp$ → $T$ → $Ht/Zt$) as a function of $T$-quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representation assuming $\kappa$=0.7. The observed limits for the individual analyses are shown.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Monotop 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) singlet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.Comb 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-1\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$+2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Exp.$-2\sigma$ for the 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.OSML 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

Obs.HTZT 95% CL exclusion limits on the universal coupling constant $\kappa$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass in the SU(2) doublet representations for the combination. Limits are only presented in the regime $\Gamma_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\mathrm{T}} < 50\%$, where the theory calculations are known to be valid.

The observed and expected ($\pm2\sigma$) upper limits at 95% CL on the branching ratio for $H\rightarrow aa\rightarrow \gamma\gamma\tau\tau$ as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis $m_{a}$.

The polynomial parameterisation of the total signal selection efficiency as a function of $m_{a}$, defined as the fraction of the reconstructed and selected events out of the total number of events in the signal simulated samples.

Observed and expected 95 % CL exclusion limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$, shown in the context of the mh125 scenario, for $m_{H^{\pm}}>150$ GeV and $(1 \leq \tan\beta \leq 60)$. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals around the expected limit.

Observed and expected 95 % CL exclusions on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ derived from exclusion limits on $\mathrm{\cal{B}}(t\to bH^+)\times \mathrm{\cal{B}}(H^+ \to \tau \nu)$, for Type I 2HDM low mass scenario. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals around the expected limit.

Observed and expected 95 % CL exclusions on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ derived from exclusion limits on $\mathrm{\cal{B}}(t\to bH^+)\times \mathrm{\cal{B}}(H^+ \to \tau \nu)$, for Lepton Specific 2HDM low mass scenario. The surrounding shaded bands correspond to the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals around the expected limit.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, 0 forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the 1 b jet, $\geq 1$ forward jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t\leq 0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, $t>0$ signal region in the single lepton channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the $\geq 2$ b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, different flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN output score distribution of the 1 b jet, same flavor signal region in the dileptonic channel. A representative signal model distribution is shown for the scalar mediator interaction with $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi})=(1,100)$GeV and couplings set to unity. The grey dashed area in the upper panel represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds and the chosen signal model, while in the lower panel it represents only the total uncertainty in the backgrounds.

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the scalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The model-independent 95\% CL limits on production cross section for new physics processes for the pseudoscalar interaction. The expected limit is shown by the black dashed line with the 68 and 95\% CL uncertainty bands in green and yellow, respectively, while the observed limit is shown by the solid black line. Theoretical LO cross section values for the DM model and their associated uncertainties are also presented (grey line).

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the QCD control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(1l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the Z(2l) control region in the all hadronic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the W+jets control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution of the tt(2l) control region in the single lepton channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit $(N_{\text{jet}},N_{\text{bjet}})$ distribution of the ttZ control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

The post-fit NN distribution of the Drell-Yan control region in the dileptonic channel. The grey dashed area in the upper and lower panels represents the total uncertainty in all of the backgrounds.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking periods, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the all hadronic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last three requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T}^{b}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the single lepton channel. The requirements listed up to and including the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last six requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the $M_{T2}^{W}$ cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the t+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,50)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{\phi}) = (1,500)$ GeV scalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,50)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Predicted signal yields for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data-taking period, corresponding to $36.3\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, $41.5\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, and $59.7\,\text{fb}^{-1}$, respectively, after the application of each search requirement for the tt+DM $(m_{\chi},m_{a}) = (1,500)$ GeV pseudoscalar mediator signal hypothesis for the dileptonic channel. The requirements listed up to and including the Z window cut are cumulative such that only the events and objects passing a given requirement are considered in subsequent requirements. The last four requirements show the separate yields after the cumulative requirements up to the Z window cut.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the tt+DM pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM t-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering all possible decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel scalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

Cross sections calculated to leading order (LO) accuracy for the t+DM tW-channel pseudoscalar mediator signal process considering dileptonic decays from the visible particles in the final state.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of &kappa;_2V (obtained using the signal strength &mu;_VBF as the POI) from the combined ggF and VBF signal regions, as shown by the solid black line. The value of &kappa;_&lambda; is fixed to 1. The blue and yellow bands show respectively the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands around the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The expected exclusion limits are obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The dark red line shows in the predicted VBF HH cross-section as a function of &kappa;_2V.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limit obtained using the signal strength &mu;_ggF+VBF as the POI in the two-dimensional &kappa;_&lambda; vs. &kappa;_2V space, obtained from the combined ggF and VBF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The blue and yellow bands show respectively the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands around the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The star denotes the SM prediction (&kappa;_&lambda;=κ_2V=1). The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$.

The expected and observed profile likelihood ratio scans for &kappa;_&lambda; coupling modifier, shown by the solid black line, using the coupling modifier as the POIs. The value of &kappa;_2V is fixed to 1. The dashed blue line shows the expected profile likelihood ratio, as obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The pink line indicates the 2&sigma; exclusion boundary.

The expected and observed profile likelihood ratio scans for the &kappa;_2V coupling modifier, shown by the solid black line, using the coupling modifier as the POIs. The value of &kappa;_&lambda; is fixed to 1. The dashed blue line shows the expected profile likelihood ratio, as obtained using a fit to the data with the background-only hypothesis. The pink line indicates the 2&sigma; exclusion boundary.

The observed profile likelihood ratio exclusion limits for the two-dimensional &kappa;_&lambda; vs. &kappa;_2V modifier space, shown by the solid dark purple line at the 1&sigma; level and the dashed turquoise line at the 2&sigma; level. The black cross denotes the best-fit values of (&kappa;_&lambda;,&kappa;_2V). For both the expected and observed limit plots, the black star indicates the SM prediction (&kappa;_&lambda;=κ_2V=1).

The expected profile likelihood ratio exclusion limits for the two-dimensional &kappa;_&lambda; vs. &kappa;_2V modifier space, where the solid pink line denotes the 1&sigma;-level exclusion and the dashed orange line denotes the 2&sigma;-level exclusion. The black cross denotes the best-fit values of (&kappa;_&lambda;,&kappa;_2V). For both the expected and observed limit plots, the black star indicates the SM prediction (&kappa;_&lambda;=κ_2V=1).

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_{H G} vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_tG vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_{t H} vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits on the SMEFT coefficients in the two-dimensional spaces c_H&#9633; vs. c_H shown by the solid black lines. The displayed values are in units of $\mu_{ggF}$. The dashed black line indicates the expected 95&#37; CL exclusion limits. The shaded blue band indicates the &plusmn; 1&sigma; uncertainty of the exclusion limits, while the yellow band indicates the &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainty. The values of the other three coefficients for each plot are fixed to 0. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2016 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2017 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

Distributions of the reconstructed m_HH in data (shown by the black points) and the estimated background (shown by the yellow histograms), in each of the six |&Delta;&eta;_HH|/X_HH categories in the ggF signal region, for the 2018 data. The hatching shows the total uncertainty on the background estimate. The distribution of the expected background is obtained using the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters in the background-only fit to the data. Distributions of the SM and &kappa;_&lambda;= 6 signal models are overlaid, scaled so as to be visible on the plot, and the scaling for each signal model is the same across the six categories. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data yield to the predicted background in each bin. Events in the underflow and overflow bins are counted in the yields of the initial and final bins respectively. In the HEPData entry, the raw value per histogram bin is provided, while in the published paper the values in the histogram are scaled by the bin width.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the five relevant SMEFT coefficients: (a) c_H, (b) c_{H G}, (c) c_H&#9633;, (d) c_tH, and (e) c_tG, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the two relevant HH HEFT coefficients: (a) c_tt&#772;HH and (b) c_ggHH, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

The observed 95&#37; CL exclusion limits as a function of the two relevant HH HEFT coefficients: (a) c_tt&#772;HH and (b) c_ggHH, obtained from the combined ggF signal model, as shown by the solid black line. The values of the other four coefficients are fixed to 0. The blue and yellow bands show the 1&sigma; and 2&sigma; bands respectively on the expected exclusion limits, which are shown by the dashed black line. The red line shows the predicted ggF HH cross-section as a function of the coefficient. The VBF HH process is ignored for this result.

$\mathrm{D}_{s2}^*{+}$ / $\mathrm{D}_{s}^{+}$ ratio at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV BR = 23.35%, branching ratio of $\mathrm{D}_{s2}^*{+}\rightarrow\mathrm{D}^{+} \mathrm K^{0}_{S}$ decay computed from RQM predictions and ratio of the BRs between the two possible final charged states.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow vs pseudorapidity.

Directed flow as a function of (pseudorapidity-y_beam) for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 19.6 GeV for 0-40% centrality.

Directed flow as a function of (pseudorapidity-y_beam) for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 27 GeV for 0-40% centrality.

Directed flow as a function of pseudorapidity for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 19.6 GeV for 10-40% centrality.

Directed flow as a function of pseudorapidity for Au+Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 27 GeV for 10-40% centrality.