Best fit values of $\sigma(gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$ relative to their SM prediction from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also shown.

Best fit values of $\sigma(gg\to H\to WW)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{WW}$ from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The values involving cross sections are given for $\sqrt{s}$=8 TeV, assuming the SM values for $\sigma_i(7 \mathrm{TeV})/\sigma_i(8 \mathrm{TeV})$. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also shown.

Best fit values of $\sigma(gg\to H\to WW)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{WW}$ relative to their SM prediction from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also shown.

Best fit values of $\kappa_{gZ}= \kappa_{g}\cdot\kappa_{Z} / \kappa_{H}$ and of the ratios of coupling modifiers, as defined in the most generic parameterisation described in the context of the $\kappa$ framework, from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into the four components described in the text. The uncertainties in $\lambda_{tg}$ and $\lambda_{WZ}$, for which a negative solution is allowed, are calculated around the overall best fit value. The expected total uncertainties in the measurements are also shown. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Measured global signal strength $\mu$ and its total uncertainty, together with the breakdown of the uncertainty into its four components as defined in the text. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and separately for each experiment. The expected uncertainty, with its breakdown, is also shown.

Measured signal strengths $\mu$ and their total uncertainties for different Higgs boson production processes. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and separately for each experiment, for the combined $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also displayed. These results are obtained assuming that the Higgs boson branching fractions are the same as in the SM.

Measured signal strengths $\mu$ and their total uncertainties for different Higgs boson decay channels. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, and separately for each experiment, for the combined $\sqrt{s}$=7 and 8 TeV data. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are also displayed. These results are obtained assuming that the Higgs boson production process cross sections at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV are the same as in the SM.

Results of the ten-parameter fit of $\mu_F^f = \mu_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}^f$ and $\mu_V^f = \mu_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}^f$ for each of the five decay channels. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, together with their measured and expected uncertainties. The measured results are also shown separately for each experiment.

Results of the six-parameter fit of the global ratio $\mu_V/\mu_F = \mu_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}/\mu_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$ together with $\mu_F^f$ for each of the five decay channels. The results are shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, together with their measured and expected uncertainties. The measured results are also shown separately for each experiment.

Fit results allowing BSM loop couplings, assuming that $|\kappa_{V}| \le$ 1, where $\kappa_{V}$ denotes $\kappa_{Z}$ or $\kappa_{W}$, and that $\mathrm{B_{BSM}} \ge$ 0. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. For the parameters with both signs allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ interval is shown on a second line. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Fit results allowing BSM loop couplings, assuming that there are no additional BSM contributions to the Higgs boson width, i.e. $\mathrm{B_{BSM}}=0$. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. For the parameters with both signs allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ interval is shown on a second line. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $\mathrm{B_{BSM}}$ = 0, the uncertainty is not indicated. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Fit results for the parameterisation assuming the absence of BSM particles in the loops ($\mathrm{B_{BSM}}$=0). The results with their measured and expected uncertainties are reported for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, together with the individual results from each experiment. For the parameters with both signs allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ CL interval is shown on a second line. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $|\kappa_\mu|$ = 0, the uncertainty is not indicated. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown.

Summary of fit results for a parameterisation probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for up-type versus down-type fermions. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The parameter $\kappa_{uu}$ is positive definite since $\kappa_H$ is always assumed to be positive. For the parameter $\lambda_{du}$, for which both signs are allowed, the other 1$\sigma$ CL interval is shown on a second line. Negative values for the parameter $\lambda_{Vu}$ are excluded by more than 4$\sigma$.

Summary of fit results for a parameterisation probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for leptons versus quarks. The results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their measured and expected uncertainties. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The parameter $\kappa_{qq}$ is positive definite since $\kappa_H$ is always assumed to be positive. For the parameter $\lambda_{lq}$, for which there is no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. Negative values for the parameter $\lambda_{Vq}$ are excluded by more than 4$\sigma$.

Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters, $\sigma_i\cdot\mathrm{B}^f$ for each specific channel $i\to H\to f$. Only 20 parameters are shown because the other three, corresponding to the $H\to ZZ$ decay channel for the $WH$, $ZH$, and $ttH$ production processes, are not measured with a meaningful precision.

Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with nine parameters, $\sigma(gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$.

Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with seven parameters, $\kappa_{gZ}=\kappa_{g}\cdot\kappa_{Z} / \kappa_{H}$ and the ratios of coupling modifiers.

Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS pre-fit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters, $\sigma_i\cdot\mathrm{B}^f$ for each specific channel $i\to H\to f$. Only 20 parameters are shown because the other three, corresponding to the $H\to ZZ$ decay channel for the $WH$, $ZH$, and $ttH$ production processes, are not measured with a meaningful precision.

Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS pre-fit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with nine parameters, $\sigma(gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma_i/\sigma_{gg\mathrm{F}}$, and $\mathrm{B}^f/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$.

Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS pre-fit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with seven parameters, $\kappa_{gZ}=\kappa_{g}\cdot\kappa_{Z} / \kappa_{H}$ and the ratios of coupling modifiers.

ATLAS+CMS combined best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{g}$,$\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane.

ATLAS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{g}$,$\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane.

CMS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{g}$,$\kappa_{\gamma}$) plane.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow WW$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow bb$ channel.

ATLAS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane.

CMS best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow WW$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% CL negative log-likelihood contour in the ($\kappa_{F}$,$\kappa_{V}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow bb$ channel, assuming $\kappa_{F}>0$.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow ZZ$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow WW$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ channel.

Best-fit and 68% and 95% CL negative log-likelihood contours in the ($\mu^{f}_{gg\mathrm{F}+ttH}$,$\mu^{f}_{\mathrm{VBF}+VH}$) plane for the $H\rightarrow bb$ channel.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H^{\pm\pm}) \times \mathrm{{\it B}}(H^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$, as a function of doubly charged Higgs boson mass.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $s_H$ in the Georgi--Machacek model as a function of doubly charged Higgs boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the coefficients for higher-order (dimension-eight) operators in the effective field theory Lagrangian.

Main systematic uncertainties in the analysis.

Signal efficiency from the generator level fiducial definition to the reconstruction level selection for the dilepton mass variable.

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.

Figure 9a (upper left). The 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified models as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

Figure 9a (upper left). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 9a (upper left). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 9b (upper right). The 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified models as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

Figure 9b (upper right). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL.

Figure 9b (upper right). Expected exclusion region at 95%.

Figure 9c (bottom left). The 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5tttt simplified models as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. imits are not given for the T5tttt model for mχ~01< 50 GeV for the reason stated in the text.

Figure 9c (bottom left). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 9c (bottom left). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 9d (bottom right). The 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified models as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

Figure 9d (bottom right). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL.

Figure 9d (bottom right). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL.

The observed number of events and the total background prediction for search regions with Nt = 1 and Nb = 1.

The observed number of events and the total background prediction for search regions with Nt = 1 and Nb ≥ 2.

The observed number of events and the total background prediction for search regions with Nt ≥ 2.

Selected T2tt signal yields for the aggregate search bins.

Selected gluino mediated signal yields for the aggregate search bins.

Limit on the signal strength of the DM signal in a simplified model with a scalar mediator.

Limit on the signal strength of the DM signal in a simplified model with a pseudoscalar mediator.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction, $\sigma$(qq -> ZH) B(H -> inv.), as a function of the SM-like Higgs boson mass. The limits consider only quark-induced Higgs boson production.

The 95% CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficient $\lambda(1\mathrm{TeV} / \Lambda_{U})^{d_{U}-1}$ of the unparticle-quark coupling operator.

The 95% CL lower limits on the reduced Planck mass $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

The covariance matrix of the bin contents of the background fit. Because the matrix is symmetric by definiton, only the upper half is provided here for presentational purposes. The full matrix can be obtained by mirroring the given half along the diagonal.

Figure 3 (upper). Distribution of $M_{T2}(ll)$ in a control region enriched in $t\bar{t}$ events defined by requiring at least 2 jets, at least one of them b-tagged, and missing transverse momentum below 80 GeV. For the plot, simulated yields are normalized to data using the yields in the $M_{T2}(ll)$ < 100 GeV region.

Figure 4 (upper). Expected and observed yields in the five $t\bar{t}Z$ control regions, which are defined by different requirements on the number of reconstructed jets and b jets, before the fit.

Figure 4 (lower). Expected and observed yields in the five $t\bar{t}Z$ control regions, which are defined by different requirements on the number of reconstructed jets and b jets, after the fit.

Figure 5 (left). Distribution of $M_{T2}(ll)$ of SF events falling within in the Z boson mass window with at least two jets and no b jet, $p_{T}^{miss} > 80$ GeV and $M_{T2}(ll) > 100$ GeV.

Figure 5 (center). Distribution of $M_{T2}(blbl)$ of SF events falling within in the Z boson mass window with at least two jets and no b jet, $p_{T}^{miss} > 80$ GeV and $M_{T2}(ll) > 100$ GeV.

Figure 5 (right). Distribution of $p_{T}^{miss}$ of SF events falling within in the Z boson mass window with at least two jets and no b jet, $p_{T}^{miss} > 80$ GeV and $M_{T2}(ll) > 100$ GeV.

Figure 6. Event yields in the 13 Drell-Yan and multiboson control regions for events with SF leptons falling within the Z boson mass window and no b jets, after renormalizing with the scale factors obtained from the fit procedure described in the text.

Figure 7 (left). Distributions of $M_{T2}(ll)$ for observed events in the dimuon channel compared to the predicted SM background.

Figure 7 (center). Distributions of $M_{T2}(ll)$ for observed events in the dielectron channel compared to the predicted SM background.

Figure 7 (right). Distributions of $M_{T2}(ll)$ for observed events in the electron-muon channel compared to the predicted SM background.

Figure 8 (left). Distributions of $M_{T2}(ll)$ for all lepton flavors for the defined selection.

Figure 8 (center). Distributions of $M_{T2}(blbl)$ for all lepton flavors for the defined selection, after requiring $M_{T2}(ll) > 100$ GeV.

Figure 8 (right). Distributions of $p_{T}^{miss}$ for all lepton flavors for the defined selection, after requiring $M_{T2}(ll) > 100$ GeV.

Figure 9 (upper). Predicted backgrounds and observed yields in the dielectron and dimuon search regions. The yields are post fit and correspond to the numbers quoted in Tab. 4 of the publication.

Figure 9 (lower). Predicted backgrounds and observed yields in the electron-muon search regions. The yields are post fit and correspond to the numbers quoted in Tab. 4 of the publication.

Figure 10. Predicted backgrounds and observed yields in all search regions combined. The yields are post fit and correspond to the numbers quoted in Tab. 4 of the publication.

Figure 11 (upper). Observed limits for the T2tt model in the top squark - LSP mass plane. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane.

Figure 11 (upper). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 11 (upper). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 11 (lower). Observed limits for the T2bW model in the top squark - LSP mass plane. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane.

Figure 11 (lower). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 11 (lower). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 12 (upper left). Observed limits for the T8bbllnunu model in the top squark - LSP mass plane. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.05 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (upper left). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.05 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (upper left). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.05 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (upper left). Observed limits for the T8bbllnunu model in the top squark - LSP mass plane. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (upper left). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (upper left). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (lower). Observed limits for the T8bbllnunu model in the top squark - LSP mass plane. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.95 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (lower). Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.95 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 12 (lower). Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction. $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} = 0.5 (m_{\tilde{t}_{1}} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})$, $m_{\tilde{l}} = 0.95 (m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) + m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$

Figure 13. Observed limits for the T2tt model in the top squark - LSP mass plane combining the dilepton final state with single-lepton and the all-hadronic final states. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane.

Figure 13. Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 13. Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 14. Observed limits for the T2bW model in the top squark - LSP mass plane combining the dilepton final state with single-lepton and the all-hadronic final states. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane.

Figure 14. Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Figure 14. Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Additional Figure 3. Observed limits for the T2tt model in the top squark - LSP mass plane using aggregate signal regions. The numbers indicate the 95% CL upper limit on the cross section times the square of the branching fraction at each point of the plane.

Additional Figure 3. Observed exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Additional Figure 3. Expected exclusion region at 95% CL assuming 100% branching fraction.

Table 5. Ratios of $\mu=\frac{\sigma$}{\sigma_{theory}}$ of the 95% CL expected and observed limits to simplified model expectations for different DM particle masses and mediator masses.

Table 6. Expected and observed event yields, summed over all lepton flavors, in aggregate signal regions.

Table 7 (upper). Covariance matrix for the background prediction in aggregate signal regions.

Table 7 (lower). Correlation matrix for the background prediction in aggregate signal regions.

Additional Figure 1. Correlation matrix of the 13 signal regions, split into same-flavor (SF) and different-flavor (DF) regions.

Additional Figure 2. Covariance matrix of the 13 signal regions, split into same-flavor (SF) and different-flavor (DF) regions.

The $p_T ^{miss}$ distributions for muon channel comparing the data and background model with systematic uncertainty.

The $m_T$ distributions for electron channel comparing the data and background model with systematic uncertainty, after fitting the background-only model to the data.

The $m_T$ distributions for muon channel comparing the data and background model with systematic uncertainty, after fitting the background-only model to the data.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ, assuming zero width, based on the combined analysis of the electron and muon channels.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ, assuming zero width, based on the combined analysis of the electron channels.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ, assuming zero width, based on the combined analysis of the muon channels.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ based on a combined analysis of the electron and muon channels. The more generic version of the bulk graviton model takes 0/10%/20%/30% mass width of the resonance into consideration, assuming gluon-gluon fusion production.

Expected and observed limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction of a new spin-2 heavy resonance X$\rightarrow$ZZ based on a combined analysis of the electron and muon channels. The more generic version of the bulk graviton model takes 0/10%/20%/30% mass width of the resonance into consideration, assuming qq annihilation production.

The dependence of the second-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficient (v_2{2}) on centrality

The dependence of the fourth-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficient (v_2{4}) on centrality

The dependence of the sixth-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficient (v_2{6}) on centrality

The dependence of the eigth-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficient (v_2{8}) on centrality

The dependence of the ratio of the sixth-order to the fourth-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficients (v_2{6} / v_2{4}) on centrality

The dependence of the ratio of the eigth-order to the fourth-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficients (v_2{8} / v_2{4}) on centrality

The dependence of the ratio of the eigth-order to the sixth-order elliptic flow cumulant coefficients (v_2{8} / v_2{6}) on centrality

The dependence of the standardized skewness estimate (\gamma_1^exp) on centrality

The dependence of the k_2 parameter obtained from elliptic power law fits to unfolded elliptic flow probability densities on centrality

The dependence of the \epsilon_0 parameter obtained from elliptic power law fits to unfolded elliptic flow probability densities on centrality

The dependence of the \alpha parameter obtained from elliptic power law fits to unfolded elliptic flow probability densities on centrality

The $\langle x_{\mathrm{j}\gamma} \rangle$ and $R_{\mathrm{j}\gamma}$, the number of associated jets per photon, in 0-30% and 30-100% centrality PbPb collisions. The smeared pp data are added for comparison. A value of 999 in the bin range indicates that there is no upper limit.

The $I_{\mathrm{AA}}^{\mathrm{jet}}$ vs. $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{jet}}$ for 0-30% and 30-100% centrality PbPb collisions. Bins for which there are no data points are denoted as 'empty'.

The centrality dependence of $x_{\mathrm{j}\gamma}$ of photon+jet pairs normalized by the number of photons for PbPb and smeared pp data. Empty bins are denoted as 'empty' in the table.

The $\langle x_{\mathrm{j}\gamma} \rangle$ and $R_{\mathrm{j}\gamma}$ as a function of $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$ for $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 60$ and 80 GeV. The PbPb results are compared to pp results smeared by the relative jet energy resolution corresponding to each centrality interval.