The (Z to l+l-l'+l'-) branching ratio. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is theoretical uncertainty, and the third is luminosity uncertainty. The theoretical prediction is from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO.

The total (P P to Z Z) cross section. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is theoretical uncertainty, and the third is luminosity uncertainty. The theoretical predictions are MATRIX generated at NNLO and POWHEG generated at NLO plus the gluon-gluon initial state contribution from MCFM. Both use NNPDF3.0 PDFs and fixed scales mu_F = mu_R = 0.5m[l+l-l'+l'-].

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.

Ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on C to CH.

Statistical error matrix of the ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on C to CH.

Systematic error matrix of the ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on C to CH.

Ratio of the total DIS cross section on Fe to CH as a function of $E_\nu$.

Statistical error matrix of the ratio of the total DIS cross section on Fe to CH as a function of $E_\nu$.

Systematic error matrix of the ratio of the total DIS cross section on Fe to CH as a function of $E_\nu$.

Ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on Fe to CH.

Statistical error matrix of the ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on Fe to CH.

Systematic error matrix of the ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on Fe to CH.

Ratio of the total DIS cross section on Pb to CH as a function of $E_\nu$.

Statistical error matrix of the ratio of the total DIS cross section on Pb to CH as a function of $E_\nu$.

Systematic error matrix of the ratio of the total DIS cross section on Pb to CH as a function of $E_\nu$.

Ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on Pb to CH.

Statistical error matrix of the ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on Pb to CH.

Systematic error matrix of the ratio of the $x$-differential DIS cross section on Pb to CH.

Flux-integrated differential $\nu_{e}$ CCQE-like cross section versus electron angle.

Covariance matrix for flux-integrated differential $\nu_{e}$ CCQE-like cross section versus electron angle.

The flux-integrated differential $\nu_{e}$ CCQE-like cross section versus $Q^{2}_{\rm QE}$.

Covariance matrix for the flux-integrated differential $\nu_{e}$ CCQE-like cross section versus $Q^{2}_{\rm QE}$.

The ratio of the MINERvA $\nu_{e}$ CCQE differential cross section as a function of $Q^2_{\rm QE}$ to the analogous result from MINERvA for $\nu_{\mu}$ [Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 022502].

Covariance matrix for the ratio of the MINERvA $\nu_{e}$ CCQE differential cross section as a function of $Q^2_{\rm QE}$ to the analogous result from MINERvA for $\nu_{\mu}$ [Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 022502].

Fig. 7. The 95% CL exclusion limit on $\sigma (pp \to H)\mathcal{B}(H \to \mu\mu\gamma)$, with $m_{\mu\mu}$ < 20 GeV, for a Higgs-like particle, as a function of the mass hypothesis, $m_{H}$.

Ratio of the Z'NU to Z'SSM acceptance times efficiency (ACC*EFF) in the lep-had channel as a function of sin^2phi and the Z' mass.

Z' SSM acceptance (ACC) and product of acceptance and efficiency (ACC*EFF) for the had-had and lep-had selections as a function of the Z' mass.

Number of expected Z'SSM signal (NS), background (NB) and observed (N) events passing the total transverse mass ($m_{\rm T}^{\rm tot}$) threshold in the had-had and lep-had channels.

Median expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction to tau+tau- for Z'SSM production for the exclusive had-had and lep-had channels, and for both channels combined.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching fraction to tau+tau- for Z'L and Z'R production for the combination of the had-had and lep-had channels.

Observed 95% CL lower limit on the Z'NU mass as a function of sin^2(phi).

Fiducial cross sections for pT(gamma) > 15 GeV with statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties, respectively. Combined result of electron and muon channels.

psi(2S) double-differential cross section times branching fraction and the corresponding scaling factors to obtain the cross sections for different polarization scenarios (azimuthal polarization parameter in the center of mass helicity frame lambda_theta^HX = +1, -1, +0.03) as a function of pT for |y| < 1.2.

Ratio of psi(2S) to J/psi differential cross section times branching fractions assuming unpolarized productions as a function of pT for |y| < 1.2.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections as a function of the variable $z_{I\!\!P}$ for diffractive dijet DIS. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections as a function of the variable $x_{I\!\!P}$ for diffractive dijet DIS. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections as a function of the variable $y$ for diffractive dijet DIS. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections as a function of the variable $Q^2$ for diffractive dijet DIS. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections for diffractive dijet DIS as a function of the variable $E_T^{*\text{jet1}}$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections for diffractive dijet DIS as a function of the variable $M_X$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections for diffractive dijet DIS as a function of the variable $\vert\Delta\eta^{\text{jets}}\vert$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential cross sections for diffractive dijet DIS as a function of the variable $\langle\eta^{\text{jets}}\rangle$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations and the the radiative corrections ($1+\delta_{\text{rad}}$) are also listed. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections as a function of the variable $z_{I\!\!P}$ for the dijet photoproduction kinematic range. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections as a function of the variable $x_{I\!\!P}$ for the dijet photoproduction kinematic range. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections as a function of the variable $y$ for the dijet photoproduction kinematic range. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections as a function of the variable $x_\gamma$ for the dijet photoproduction kinematic range. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections in the photoproduction kinematic range as a function of the variable $E_T^{*\text{jet1}}$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections in the photoproduction kinematic range as a function of the variable $M_X$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections in the photoproduction kinematic range as a function of the variable $\vert\Delta\eta^{\text{jets}}\vert$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Bin averaged hadron level differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections in the photoproduction kinematic range as a function of the variable $\langle\eta^{\text{jets}}\rangle$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given. The overall normalisation uncertainty of $6\%$ is not included in the table.

Ratios of differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections, measured in photoproduction, to measurements in DIS as a function of the variable $\vert\Delta\eta^{\text{jets}}\vert$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given.

Ratios of differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections, measured in photoproduction, to measurements in DIS as a function of the variable $y$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given.

Ratios of differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections, measured in photoproduction, to measurements in DIS as a function of the variable $z_{I\!\!P}$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given.

Ratios of differential diffractive dijet $ep$ cross sections, measured in photoproduction, to measurements in DIS as a function of the variable $E_T^{*\text{jet1}}$. The hadronisation correction factors ($1+\delta_{\text{hadr}}$) applied to the NLO calculations are given.