Muon reconstruction efficiency as function of its tranverse impact parameter, $d_0$.

Electron selection efficiency as function of its tranverse momentum, $p_T$.

Muon selection efficiency as function of its tranverse momentum, $p_T$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production via vector boson fusion cross section obtained for both single-lepton and dilepton channels, and from their combination

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production cross section for two different benchmark scenarios “JHEP04(2016)01” and “JHEP03(2020)91”

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier κλ All Higgs boson couplings other than λ are assumed to have the values predicted by the SM

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production via VBF cross section as a function of the effective coupling κ2V. The ggF contribution in this case is set to the SM expectation. All other Higgs boson couplings are assumed to have the values predicted by the SM.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the nonresonant HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling c2. All other Higgs boson couplings are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_V/\kappa_f$

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_V/\kappa_f$

Couplings resolved loops. Numbers are in $\kappa_i$.

Couplings effective loops.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the SM strength modifier for the HH production, per final state and combined.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the HH production cross section for different values of $\kappa_\lambda$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the HH production cross section for different values of $\kappa_{2V}$.

Signal strength modifiers per production channel tims decay mode $\mu_i^f$.

Couplings effective loops including the invisible and undetermined branching fractions.

$\kappa_{\lambda}$ 68 and 95% confidence intervals, from single and double Higgs productions.

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_\lambda/\kappa_{2V}$

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_\lambda/\kappa_{2V}$

Simultaneous coupling measurement $\kappa_\lambda/\kappa_{2V}$

Observed correlations between the signal strength modifiers per production mode, $\mu_i$

Observed correlations between the signal strength modifiers per decay channel, $\mu^f$

Observed correlations between the signal strength modifiers per production mode times decay channel $\mu_i^f$.

No description provided.

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $p_T$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the pseudorapidity difference between the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Correlation matrix for the differential branching fraction extraction between different $q^2$ bins in the simultaneous fit.

The product of acceptance and efficiency ($A\epsilon$) of the $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^+\to\mathrm{K}^+\mu^+\mu^-)$ channel, as a function of the muon pair $q^2$, as measured in simulated signal events, after all the corrections applied. In the figure, regions corresponding to resonances are displayed with red markers.

Same as Table 5, but for the bins containing the J$\psi$ and $\psi$(2S) resonances.

Integrated branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{B}^\pm \to \mathrm{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ in the low-$q^2$ region.

Ratio of branching fractions $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\mu^+\mu^-)$ to $\mathcal{B}(\text{B}^\pm \to \text{K}^\pm\text{e}^+\text{e}^-)$, determined from the measured double ratio $R$(K) of these decays to the respective branching fractions of the decay chains $\text{B}^\pm\to\text{J/}\psi\text{K}^\pm$ with $\text{J/}\psi\to\mu^+\mu^-$ and $\text{e}^+\text{e}^-$.

Negative log likelihood function from the fit profiled as a function of the inverse ratio $R(\mathrm{K})^{-1}$.

Postfit score of the $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}$ output node from the multiclass classifier in $\text{SR}_\text{3l,3j}$ for events with at least 2 b jets

Postfit score of the tWZ output node from the binary classifier in $\text{SR}_\text{3l,2j}$

$\text{p}_\text{T}$ of the leading jet in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,2j}$

$\text{p}_\text{T}$ of the leading lepton in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,2j}$

Max $\text{p}_\text{T}$ of the lepton-jet in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,3j}$

Invariant mass of the system of leptons, jets, and $\vec{\text{p}}^\text{miss}_\text{T}$ in the $\text{SR}_\text{3l,3j}$

Two-dimensional likelihood scan of the signal strenghts of tWZ ($\mu_\text{tWZ}$) vs. $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}$ ($\mu_{\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}}$). The blue lines show the 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence level contours. The black cross represents the best-fit value, while the red diamond the SM expectation

Two-dimensional likelihood scan of the signal strenghts of tWZ ($\mu_\text{tWZ}$) vs. $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}$ ($\mu_{\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}\text{Z}}$). The blue lines show the 68%, 95%, and 99% confidence level contours. The black cross represents the best-fit value, while the red diamond the SM expectation

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance. The acceptance $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{GEN} > 85\% m_{X}^{input}$) / $N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings). Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Mass exclusion ranges of the benchmark signal scenarios are depicted with hatched areas inside the black contours.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with nominal width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 3\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $Z_{R} \to ggg$ with narrow width ($\Gamma_{X}/m_{X}\sim 0.01\%$). A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$, where $\varphi$ is the radion. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Efficiencies of the selection requirements on the benchmark signal processes: $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$, where $V$ is a beyond-the-SM vector boson. A value of -1 means that the corresponding efficiency is not calculated for this year.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $Z_{R} \to ggg$. The acceptance is defined as $\mathcal{A} = N$(events with $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$)/$N$(events generated in the full phase space defined by the CMS default generator settings).

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $G_{KK} \to {\varphi}(gg)g$.

Acceptance of the signal selection requirement $m_{X}^{\text{GEN}}/m_{X}^{\text{input}} > 85\%$ on the benchmark signal process $q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Observed local significance for a 3-body decay $ggg$ resonance, shown for resonances with nominal width (blue solid line) and narrow width (red dashed line).

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $ggg$ resonance.

Observed local significance for a cascade decay $qqq$ resonance.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(gg)g) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.2$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.3$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.4$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.5$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.6$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.7$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal.

Expected and observed limits at 95% CL on $\sigma \mathcal{B} (X \to Y(qq)q) \mathcal{A}$ for a cascade decay trijet resonance with $m_{Y} / m_{X} = 0.8$. Only 2016 data are used to derive limits below 2.0 TeV because of higher trigger thresholds in 2017 and 2018. Theoretical predictions of the benchmark are depicted with the red curve. A value of -1 in the table means that the corresponding theoretical prediction is not calculated for this signal

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $Z_{R}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $G_{KK}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Cut flow table of the selection requirments for the $q^{*}$ model scenarios. Values shown are absolute efficiencies, e.g., values shown in the column of 'Efficiency ($\Delta_{R}^{max} < 3.0$)' represent the cumulative efficiencies achieved through all selection requirements applied up to and including the current selection criterion.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to Z_{R} \to ggg$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to G_{KK} \to \varphi(gg)g$.

Predicted production cross section of the benchmark signal process $pp \to q^{*} \to V(qq)q$.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}^{Z\gamma}$ using Approach 1. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are fixed to zero. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a2}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{\Lambda1}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters. Axis scales are varied to improve the visibility of important features.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}$ using Approach 2. The other two anomalous coupling cross section fractions are left floating in the fit. The signal strength modifiers are treated as free parameters.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\delta c_{Z}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{Z\Box}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $c_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Observed profiled likelihood on the $\tilde{c}_{ZZ}$ coupling of the SMEFT Higgs basis.

Expected profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Observed profiled likelihood on $f_{a3}^{ggH}$. The signal strength modifiers and the CP-odd HVV anomalous coupling cross section fraction are treated as free parameters.

Correlation matrix associated to the statistical covariance matrix of the data and MC for the primary Lund jet plane density for AK8 jets in a one-dimensional representation with bin indices. The mapping between the bin indices and the physical binning can be imported from the XML file attached to this HepData record using the TUnfoldBinningXML class of ROOT (qualitatively, it corresponds to slicing the Lund plane horizontally from low kT to high kT).

Observed upper limits at 95% CL on B($\text{H} \rightarrow \text{a}_{1}\text{a}_{1}$) in percent, obtained from the combination of the $\mu\mu$bb and $\tau\tau$bb channels. The results are obtained as functions of $m_{\text{a}_{1}}$ for 2HDM+S Type I (independent of tan$\beta$), Type II (tan$\beta$=2.0), Type III (tan$\beta$=2.0), and Type IV (tan$\beta$=0.6), respectively.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Normalized differential cross section of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space.

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Correlation of parameters of interest in fit of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{add.}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{avg}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{3})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}_{4})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{4})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1},\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{soft}})|$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{2})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $|\eta(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})|$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\Delta\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{extra}})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{lj}^{\mathrm{extra}}_{1})$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{j}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $\mathrm{m}_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{max}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $H^{\mathrm{light}}_{\mathrm{T}}$ observable in $\geq 7$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$, $\geq 3$ light phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ observable in $\geq 6$ jets: $\geq 4 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Covariances of all nuisance parameters and POIs in fit of $N_{\mathrm{b}}$ observable in $\geq 5$ jets: $\geq 3 \mathrm{b}$ phase space

Fiducial cross sections from the measurements of all observables, compared to predictions from different ttbb simulation approaches. For each of the normalized differential measurements the fiducial cross section in the respective phase space is also determined. In the paper only one representative observable is quoted for each fiducial phase space, while here the measured cross section with the uncertainties from the fit to the respective observable is summarized.

Unfolded E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to NLO+NNLL_approx predictions. Theoretial uncertainty in each bin is handled fully correlated as shape uncertainty. For the one-sided uncertainties, we symmetrize them when performing the fit.

The fitted slopes of the E3C/E2C data distributions as a function of jet pt are used to illustrate the dependency of alphas on jet pt.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

Unfolded E3C/E2C distributions in data compared to MC predictions.

The chi2 scan result using eq.3 for different alphas.

The correlation matrix is composed by 10 jet pt region, each region is represented by a block in the plot. Inside each block, there are 22 xL bins same as the E2C, E3C and E3C/E2C distributions. Therefore, the x and y bins of the correlation matrix is given by, binNumber = pT_index * 22 + xL_index.

The correlation matrix is composed by 10 jet pt region, each region is represented by a block in the plot. Inside each block, there are 22 xL bins same as the E2C, E3C and E3C/E2C distributions. Therefore, the x and y bins of the correlation matrix is given by, binNumber = pT_index * 22 + xL_index.

The correlation matrix is composed by 10 jet pt region, each region is represented by a block in the plot. Inside each block, there are 22 xL bins same as the E2C, E3C and E3C/E2C distributions. Therefore, the x and y bins of the correlation matrix is given by, binNumber = pT_index * 22 + xL_index.

The energy weight of E2C as defined in eq.1 in the paper is used in the unfolding, the binning is listed in this table.

The energy weight of E3C as defined in eq.1 in the paper is used in the unfolding, the binning is listed in this table.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of 4. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1900 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

Distributions of $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ for data, simulated background and signal events with $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ of $\geq$ 5. The distributions are shown for split-SUSY signals with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV. Different gluino proper decay lengths are shown as $c\tau$ in the legend. All distributions are normalized to unity.

The distribution of $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ in different $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ regions for simulated background events. Events with 0 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.2 (blue), 0.2 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 0.6 (red), and 0.6 $ < S_{\mathrm{ML}} < $ 1.0 (green) are compared. All distributions are normalized to unity. The similar $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ distributions demonstrate that $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ are decorrelated.

The distribution of $d_{\mathrm{BV}}$ in $K_{\mathrm{S}}^{\mathrm{0}}$ vertices in data (black) and simulation (purple). The lower panel shows the ratio between data and simulation.

The vertex reconstruction efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

The ML tagging efficiency for artificially displaced vertices in data (black) and simulation (red). In this example, the artificially displaced vertices are corrected to mimic split-SUSY signal events with gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 1800 GeV.

Number of predicted and observed events in the control, validation, and search regions. Predictions are calculated using Eqs. (2) and (3) and fitting the data under the background-only hypothesis. Regions are organized by $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{track}}$ values, and region names corresponding with Fig. 7 are given in parentheses. The predicted number of events that pass the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection and the observed number of events that pass or fail the $S_{\mathrm{ML}}$ selection are shown in seperate rows.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY signal model with a mass splitting of 100 GeV, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the split-SUSY model with a $c\tau$ of 10 mm, shown as a function of gluino mass and mass splitting. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

The 95% CL upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction squared for the GMSB SUSY signal model, shown as a function of gluino mass and $c\tau$. The observed (solid black) and expected (dashed red) exclusion curves are overlaid on the limit plot.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) and in the Majorana scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.0, 1.0, 0.0) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.0, 0.5, 0.5) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.0) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $|V_\mathrm{N}|^2$ as a function of $m_\mathrm{N}$ for the mixing scenario ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) = (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) and in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.0 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.5 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 2.0 GeV in the Majorana scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.0 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 1.5 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on $c\tau_\mathrm{N}$ as functions of the mixing ratios ($r_e$, $r_\mu$, $r_\tau$) for a fixed N mass of 2.0 GeV in the Dirac-like scenario.

Upper 95% CL limits on HH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{\lambda}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on VHH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on HH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{2V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{V}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on VHH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Upper 95% CL limits on HH signal cross section scanned over the $\kappa_{V}$ parameter while fixing the $\kappa_{2V}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ to their SM-predicted values.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.4$ < \alpha < $0.44%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.49$ < \alpha < $0.55%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.55$ < \alpha < $0.6%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.6$ < \alpha < $0.7%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.7$ < \alpha < $0.81%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Observed differential $m_{\Gamma\Gamma}$ mass spectrum for 0.81$ < \alpha < $3.0%, where $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X$. The cross-section is calculated by dividing the event yield by the bin width and luminosity.

Two dimensional plot where the Z-axis is the observed (paper Fig. 3) or expected (Supp. Fig. 20) 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section for $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

Expected exclusion limits for $m_X N / f = 1/9$ for signal cross sections for for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$.

Expected exclusion limits for $m_X N / f = 1$ for signal cross sections for for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.005$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.006$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.007$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.008$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.009$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.01$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.011$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.012$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.013$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.014$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.015$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.016$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.017$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.018$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.019$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.02$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.021$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.022$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.023$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.024$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section, and branching fraction for the production of $X \to \phi\phi \to (\gamma\gamma)(\gamma\gamma)$, with $\alpha = m_\phi/m_X = 0.025$. The corresponding expected limits and their variations at the 1 and 2 standard deviation levels are also shown. Limits are compared to various extended higgs sector model cross sections as a function of the parameter $m_X N / f$.

Signal fractional efficiencies

Local significance in units of standard deviations in the $(m_\phi/m_X) − m_X$ plane.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.4$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $|y| < 0.5$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $|y| < 0.5$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ measured in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ for jets clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $|y| < 0.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$and $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $|y| < 0.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $0.5 < |y| < 1.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$and $1.0 < |y| < 1.5$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

The correlation matrix at the particle level of inclusive jet production cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum~$p_\mathrm{T}$ for jets in $1.5 < |y| < 2.0$ clustered using the anti-$k_\mathrm{t}$ algorithm with $R=0.7$. It contains contributions from the data and from the \textsc{PYTHIA}~8 sample used to perform the unfolding.

Upper limits at the 95% CL for nonresonant HH production with anomalous lambda_HHH and yt couplings, compared for the event categories investigated

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2tt simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bW simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bW simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2bW simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2bW simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tb simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tb simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2tb simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2tb simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2ttC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2ttC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2ttC simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2ttC simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bWC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bWC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2bWC simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2bWC simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2cc simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2cc simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2cc simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2cc simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T1tttt simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T1tttt simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T1ttbb simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T1ttbb simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. The upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. The uppser limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The observed exclusion contour of the T5ttcc simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$). The expected and observed upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T5ttcc simplified model and the region containing 68% and 95% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis. The expected and observed upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

Invariant mass distributions of the $t\to jj^{'}b$ candidates, $m_{top}$, in the 0 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Invariant mass distributions of the $t\to jj^{'}b$ candidates, $m_{top}$, in the 1 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

Invariant mass distributions of the $t\to jj^{'}b$ candidates, $m_{top}$, in the $\geq$2 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.

The measured cross section in the $\mu$+jets, $\rm{e}$+jets and $\ell$+jets channels. The first uncertainty is the statistical, the second is the systematic.

The unrolled two-dimensional mTWW-mll$\gamma$ distributions with category 0 jet after the fit to data. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and expected background. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties in the predictions.

The theoretical EWK WZ cross section in the tight EWK fiducial region. Can be multiplied by the measured EWK WZ scale factor to find the measured EWK WZ cross section.

aQGC limits on effective field theory parameters in EWK WZ events

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross section for the different channels and their combination for each benchmark model.

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross section for the bbVV channel and for each benchmark model.

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross section for the bbbb channel and for each benchmark model.

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross section for the bbtt channel and for each benchmark model.

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross section for the bbgg channel and for each benchmark model.

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the HH production cross section for the combination of all channels and for each benchmark model.

Expected and observed 95\% \CL exclusion limits on the production of a narrow, spin two resonance (X) decaying into a pair of Higgs bosons.

cross section ratio for Z(1b) and Z+jets production as a function of the leading b/inclusive (j) jet |eta|

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(1b) production as a function of the Z boson pT

cross section ratio for Z(1b) and Z+jets production as a function of the Z boson pT

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(1b) production as a function of HT

cross section ratio for Z(1b) and Z+jets production as a function of HT

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(1b) production as a function of DeltaPhi(Zb)

cross section ratio for Z(1b) and Z+jets production as a function of DeltaPhi(Zb)

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of the leading b jet pT

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of the subleading b jet pT

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of the Z boson pT

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of the invari- ant mass of the b jet pair, Mbb

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of the invari- ant mass of the Zbb system, MZbb

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of DeltaPhi(bb)

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of DeltaR(bb)

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of minimum DeltaR(Zb)

Differential fiducial cross section for Z(2b) production as a function of AZbb

fiducial cross section, for a single lepton type, for the production of Z(1b) and Z(2b) events

UPSI(3S) differential cross sections for |y| < 2.

UPSI(1S) differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI(2S) differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI(3S) differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI(1S) differential cross sections for 1 < |y| < 2.

UPSI(2S) differential cross sections for 1 < |y| < 2.

UPSI(3S) differential cross sections for 1 < |y| < 2.

UPSI(1S) differential cross sections as a function of rapidity.

UPSI differential cross sections for |y| < 2.

UPSI differential cross sections for |y| < 1.

UPSI differential cross sections for 1< |y| < 2.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.02 to 0.05.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.05 to 0.1.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.1 to 0.2.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.2 to 0.3.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.3 to 0.4.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.4 to 0.5.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.5 to 0.7.

Normalised distribution of the scaled momentum as a function of Q**2 in the X range 0.7 to 1.

Expected $95\%$ CL upper limit on the production cross section of gluinos in T5bbbbZG model.

Observed $95\%$ CL upper limit on the production cross section of gluinos in T5ttttZG model.

Expected $95\%$ CL upper limit on the production cross section of gluinos in T5ttttZG model.

Gluino - neutralino mass points lying on the observed $-1\sigma_{theory}$ exclusion contour of T5qqqqHG model.

Observed $95\%$ CL upper limit on the production cross section of gluinos in T6ttZG model.

Expected $95\%$ CL upper limit on the production cross section of gluinos in T6ttZG model.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $3\ell+1 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $2\ell+2 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $1\ell+3 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for nonresonant HH production and evaluated for the benchmark scenario JHEP04 BM7 for the $4 au_{h}$ category. The SM HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $30$ times the value predicted in the SM. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate background quantiles.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the SM HH production cross section, obtained for both individual search categories and from a simultaneous fit of all seven categories combined.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\lambda$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\lambda$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\lambda$ for the seven different categories as well as their combination. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\lambda$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section for the twelve benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)126, the additional benchmark scenario 8a from doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057, the seven benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)091, and for the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section for the twelve benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)126, the additional benchmark scenario 8a from doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)057, the seven benchmark scenarios from doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)091, and for the SM. The limits are shown for all seven search categories as well as for their combination.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ and the top Yukawa coupling modifier $\kappa_{t}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ and $\kappa_{t}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($c_{2}-\kappa_{t}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(c_{2},\kappa_{t})=(1.05, 1.74)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the top Yukawa coupling modifier $\kappa_{t}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{t}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($\kappa_{\lambda}-\kappa_{t}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(\kappa_{\lambda},\kappa_{t})=(-3.54, -1.70)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the HH production cross section as a function of the effective coupling $c_{2}$ and the Higgs boson self-coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ for the combination of all seven categories. All Higgs boson couplings other than $c_{2}$ and $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are assumed to have the values predicted in the SM. The position of the SM in the ($c_{2}-\kappa_{\lambda}$) plane, as well as the best fit value of $(c_{2},\kappa_{\lambda})=(-0.66, 5.33)$ together with contours for the theory cross section are shown as well.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $0$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $0$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs. The Limit is shown for the seven different search categories as well as their combination.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $2$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs.

Observed and expected $95\%$ CL upper limits on the production of new particles X of spin $2$ and mass $m_{X}$ in the range $250$-$1000$ GeV, which decay to Higgs boson pairs. The Limit is shown for the seven different search categories as well as their combination.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for resonances of spin 2 and mass $750\,$GeV production for the $2\ell$(ss) category. The resonant HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $1\,$pb. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

Distribution in the output of the BDT trained for resonances of spin 2 and mass $750\,$GeV production for the $3\ell$ category. The resonant HH signal is shown for a cross section amounting to $1\,$pb. The distributions expected for the background processes are shown for the values of nuisance parameters obtained from the ML fit of the signal+background hypothesis to the data. The binning is chosen to approximate signal quantiles.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(H \rightarrow inv)$ assuming a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV whose production cross sections are scaled, relative to their SM values as a function of the coupling modifiers $\kappa_{F}$ and $\kappa_{V}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(H \rightarrow inv)$ assuming a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV whose production cross sections are scaled, relative to their SM values, by $\mu_{\mathrm{qqH,VH}}$ and $\mu_{\mathrm{ggH}}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\mathcal{B}(H \rightarrow inv)$ assuming a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV whose production cross sections are scaled, relative to their SM values as a function of $\kappa_{V}$, fixing $\kappa_{F}=1$..

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limit on $\mathcal{B}(H \rightarrow inv)$ assuming a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV whose production cross sections are scaled, relative to their SM values as a function of $\kappa_{F}$, fixing $\kappa_{V}=1$..

Profile likelihood ratio as a function of $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow inv)$ assuming SM production cross sections of a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV. The solid curves represent the observations in data and the dashed curves represent the expected result assuming no invisible decays of the Higgs boson. The observed and expected likelihood scans for the partial combinations of the qqH tagged, VH tagged, and ggH tagged analyses, and the full combination.

Profile likelihood ratio as a function of $\mathcal{B}(H\rightarrow inv)$ assuming SM production cross sections of a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV. The solid curves represent the observations in data and the dashed curves represent the expected result assuming no invisible decays of the Higgs boson. The observed and expected likelihood scans for the partial combinations of the 7+8 and 13 TeV analyses, and the full combination.

Inclusive b-jet double-differential cross sections and their ratio to inclusive jet cross sections in the |rapidity| range 0.0 to 0.5, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5.

Inclusive b-jet double-differential cross sections and their ratio to inclusive jet cross sections in the |rapidity| range 0.5 to 1.0, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5.

Inclusive b-jet double-differential cross sections and their ratio to inclusive jet cross sections in the |rapidity| range 1.0 to 1.5, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5.

Inclusive b-jet double-differential cross sections and their ratio to inclusive jet cross sections in the |rapidity| range 1.5 to 2.0, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5.

Inclusive b-jet double-differential cross sections and their ratio to inclusive jet cross sections in the |rapidity| range 2.0 to 2.2, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5.

Inclusive b-jet (with muon) differential cross sections in the |rapidity| range 0.0 to 2.4, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5. Muon visible range corresponds to PT(MU) > 9 GeV and |pseudorapidity(MU)| range 0.0 to 2.4.

Inclusive b-jet differential cross sections in the |rapidity| range 0.0 to 2.4, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5. Extrapolated result from muuon visible range PT(MU) > 9 GeV and |pseudorapidity(MU)| < 2.4.

Inclusive b-jet (with muon) differential cross sections in the PT range greater than 30 GeV, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5. Muon visible range corresponds to PT(MU) > 9 GeV and |pseudorapidity(MU)| < 2.4.

Inclusive b-jet differential cross sections in the PT range greater than 30 GeV, using a jet resolution R value of 0.5. Extrapolated result from muon visible range PT(MU) > 9 GeV and |pseudorapidity(MU)| < 2.4.