Comparison of the $m_{miss}$ shapes for the simulated signal events within the fiducial region and those outside it, after including the effect of PU protons as describe in the text, for a generated $m_{X}$ mass of 1000 GeV. The distributions are shown for single(+z)-single(−z) proton reconstruction categories.

Product of the acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $m_{X}$ , for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown panel display the different final states. The definition of the fiducial region and signal model used to estimate the acceptance is provided in the text.

Product of the acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency, as a function of $m_{X}$ , for different proton reconstruction categories in the $Z \rightarrow \mu\mu $ analysis, and for events generated inside the fiducial volume defined in Table 1. The curves shown panel display the different final states. The definition of the fiducial region and signal model used to estimate the acceptance is provided in the text.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The ee final states are shown.The ee events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\mu\mu$ final states are shown.The $\mu\mu$ events are displayed without the Z boson $p_T$ requirement.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the negative arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed proton $\xi$ in the positive arm from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Distributions of the reconstructed di-proton rapidity from the proton mixing procedure with simulated MC events, are compared to data. The $\gamma$ final states are shown.For illustration, the simulated signal distributions are superimposed for various choices of $m_{X}$ , normalised to a generated fiducial cross section of 100 pb.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The proton $\xi$ distribution for the positive CT-PPS arm is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The proton $\xi$ distribution for the negative CT-PPS arm is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The di-proton invariant mass is shown.

Validation of the background modelling method, using the $e\mu$ control sample. Selected $e\mu$ events are mixed with protons from $Z\rightarrow \mu \mu$ events with $p_{T}(Z)<10$ GeV to simulate the combinatorial background shape, while the data points are unaltered $e\mu$ events. The $m_{miss}$ is shown.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZeeX$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow ppZ\mu\mu X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 1 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the multi(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-multi(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$m_{miss}$ distributions in the $pp\rightarrow pp\gamma X$, with the protons reconstructed with the single(+z)-single(-z)method. The background distributions are shown after the fit. The expectations for a signal with $m_{X} = 1000$ GeV are superimposed, where the fiducial production cross section is normalised to 10 pb.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. centrality for $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$, and protons using the event plane method in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. centrality for $K^+$, and $K^-$ using the event plane method in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. centrality for $K^+$, and $K^-$ using the event plane method in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from a symmetric acceptance across midrapidity in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Protons exhibit an increasingly negative slope as the centrality increases.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from a symmetric acceptance across midrapidity in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Protons exhibit an increasingly negative slope as the centrality increases.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from only the backward region in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Note that the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ acceptance extends to a lower limit than in Fig. 6.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. rapidity for protons in three large centrality bins from only the backward region in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. Note that the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ acceptance extends to a lower limit than in Fig. 6.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for protons in three large centrality bins in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. $v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ becomes increasingly negative as $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and centrality increase.

$v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ vs. $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ for protons in three large centrality bins in $\sqrt{s_{\textrm{NN}}}=3$ GeV Au+Au collisions at STAR. $v_3\{\Psi_1\}$ becomes increasingly negative as $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and centrality increase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma$B(pp→X→Y(bb)H) for combination as a function of m$_Y$.

Expected upper limits at 95% CL on the X → HH cross section as a function of mX from the combination of the three channels bbγγ, bbττ, and bbbb for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb−1 with different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties.

Expected upper limits on the X → YH cross section times B(Y → bb) for mX ≤ 1000 GeV at 95 % CL as a function of m$_X$ and m$_Y$ from the combination of all considered channels projected to an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$. Systematic uncertainties according to the ”S2” scenario are assumed.

The JER for R = 0.2 jets in Pb+Pb collisions as a function of $2|\Psi_2-\phi^{reco}|$ for centrality selections of 0-5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and 40-60%.

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isovector WIMP-nucleon elastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isoscalar WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 13

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 1

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 4

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 7

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 9

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 3

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 11

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 5

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 10

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 8

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 14

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 15

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 6

Isovector WIMP-nucleon inelastic coupling limit for Operator 12

Data requested from authors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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