Integrated yields of $\eta$ mesons produced in inelastic pp collisions at center of mass energies of 2.76 and 8 TeV. The uncertainty of $\sigma_{MB}$ of $^{+3.9\%}_{-6.4\%}(model)\pm2.0(lumi)$% for $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and $\pm2.3$% for 8 TeV is not included in the systematic error.

Integrated $\eta$/$\pi^{0}$ ratio produced in inelastic pp collisions at center of mass energies of 2.76 and 8 TeV.

Mean transverse momenta $\langle p_\text{T}\rangle$ of $\pi^{0}$ mesons produced in inelastic pp collisions at center of mass energies of 2.76 and 8 TeV. The uncertainty of $\sigma_{MB}$ of $^{+3.9\%}_{-6.4\%}(model)\pm2.0(lumi)$% for $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and $\pm2.3$% for 8 TeV is not included in the systematic error.

Mean transverse momenta $\langle p_\text{T}\rangle$ of $\eta$ mesons produced in inelastic pp collisions at center of mass energies of 2.76 and 8 TeV. The uncertainty of $\sigma_{MB}$ of $^{+3.9\%}_{-6.4\%}(model)\pm2.0(lumi)$% for $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV and $\pm2.3$% for 8 TeV is not included in the systematic error.

The measured ratio of cross sections for inclusive $\eta$ to $\pi^{0}$ production at a center of mass energy of 8 TeV.

Differential production cross sections of $\psi(2S)$ as a function of rapidity.

$\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a function of $p_{\rm T}$.

$\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a function of y.

Differential production cross sections of $J/\psi$ as a function of $p_{\rm T}$.

Differential production cross sections of $J/\psi$ as a function of rapidity.

$J/\psi$ mean transversee momentum vs collision energy. $p_{\rm T}$ integration ranges are 0<$p_{\rm T}$<8 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =2700 GeV, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<12 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =5020, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<20 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =7000, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<20 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =8000 and 0<$p_{\rm T}$<20 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =13000.

$J/\psi$ mean transversee momentum square vs collision energy. $p_{\rm T}$ integration ranges are 0<$p_{\rm T}$<8 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =2700 GeV, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<12 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =5020, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<20 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =7000, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<20 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =8000 and 0<$p_{\rm T}$<20 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =13000.

$\psi(2S)$ mean transversee momentum vs collision energy. $p_{\rm T}$ integration ranges are 0<$p_{\rm T}$<12 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =7000, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<12 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =8000 and 0<$p_{\rm T}$<16 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =13000.

$\psi(2S)$ mean transversee momentum square vs collision energy. $p_{\rm T}$ integration ranges are 0<$p_{\rm T}$<12 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =7000, 0<$p_{\rm T}$<12 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =8000 and 0<$p_{\rm T}$<16 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s}$ =13000.

Differential production cross sections of $J/\psi$ vs collision energy.

Differential production cross sections of $\psi(2S)$ vs collision energy.

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.

Optimised angular observables evaluated by the unbinned maximum likelihood fit. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

CP-averaged angular observables evaluated using the method of moments. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

CP-asymmetries evaluated using the method of moments. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Optimised observables evaluated using the method of moments. The first uncertainties are statistical and the second systematic.

Zero-crossing points determined with an amplitude fit.

Likelihood correlation matrix $0.1 < q^2 < 0.98~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $1.1 < q^2 < 2.5~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $2.5 < q^2 < 4.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $4.0 <q^2< 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $6.0 < q^2 < 8.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $11.0 <q^2< 12.5 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $15.0 < q^2 < 17.0 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $17.0 <q^2< 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $1.1 <q^2< 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2< 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $0.1 < q^2 < 0.98~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $1.1 < q^2 < 2.5~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $2.5 < q^2 < 4.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $4.0 <q^2< 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $6.0 < q^2 < 8.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $11.0 <q^2< 12.5 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2< 17.0 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $17.0 <q^2< 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $1.1 <q^2< 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2< 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $0.1 < q^2 < 0.98~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $1.1 < q^2 < 2.5~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $2.5 < q^2 < 4.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $4.0 <q^2< 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $6.0 < q^2 < 8.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $11.0 <q^2< 12.5 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2< 17.0 ~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $17.0 <q^2< 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $1.1 <q^2< 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Likelihood correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2< 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $0.10 < q^2 < 0.98~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $1.1 < q^2 < 2.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $2.0 < q^2 < 3.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $3.0 < q^2 < 4.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $4.0 < q^2 < 5.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $5.0 < q^2 < 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $6.0 < q^2 < 7.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $7.0 < q^2 < 8.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $11.00 <q^2 < 11.75~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $11.75 <q^2 < 12.50~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2 < 16.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $16.0 <q^2 < 17.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $17.0 <q^2 < 18.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $18.0 <q^2 < 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2 < 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $0.10 < q^2 < 0.98~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $1.1 < q^2 < 2.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $2.0 < q^2 < 3.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $3.0 < q^2 < 4.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $4.0 < q^2 < 5.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $5.0 < q^2 < 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $6.0 < q^2 < 7.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $7.0 < q^2 < 8.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $11.00 <q^2 < 11.75~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $11.75 <q^2 < 12.50~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2 < 16.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $16.0 <q^2 < 17.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $17.0 <q^2 < 18.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $18.0 <q^2 < 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2 < 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $0.1 <q^2 < 0.98~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $1.1 <q^2 < 2.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $2.0 <q^2 < 3.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $3.0 <q^2 < 4.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $4.0 <q^2 < 5.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $5.0 <q^2 < 6.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $6.0 <q^2 < 7.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $7.0 <q^2 < 8.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $11.0 <q^2 < 11.75~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $11.75 <q^2 < 12.5~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $15.0 <q^2 < 16.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $16.0 <q^2 < 17.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $17.0 < q^2 < 18.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $18.0 < q^2 < 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Bootstrap correlation matrix $15.0 < q^2 < 19.0~{\rm GeV}^2/c^4$.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} p_T(D^+)}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} y(\Upsilon(1S))}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} y(\Upsilon(1S))}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} y(D^0)}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} y(D^+)}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} \left| \Delta \phi \right| }$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{\pi}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} \left| \Delta \phi \right| }$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} \left| \Delta y \right| }$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} \left| \Delta y \right| }$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, for $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} p_T(\Upsilon(1S)D^0) }$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} p_T(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} y(\Upsilon(1S)D^0) }$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} y(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} \mathcal{A}_T }$, where $\mathcal{A}_T = \frac{p_T(\Upsilon(1S))-p_T(D^0)}{p_T(\Upsilon(1S))-p_T(D^0)}$, for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} \mathcal{A}_T }$, where $\mathcal{A}_T = \frac{p_T(\Upsilon(1S))-p_T(D^0)}{p_T(\Upsilon(1S))-p_T(D^0)}$, for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^0)}{\mathrm{d} m(\Upsilon(1S)D^0) }$, for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^0)<4.5$, $p_T(D^0)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Normalized differential cross-section $\frac{1}{\sigma}\frac{ \mathrm{d}\sigma(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}{\mathrm{d} m(\Upsilon(1S)D^+)}$ for $2<y(\Upsilon(1S))<4.5$, $2<y(D^+)<4.5$, $p_T(D^+)>1$ GeV/$c$. Only statistical uncertainties are quoted as systematic uncertainties are found to be negligible. The distribution is normalized to unity.

Differential cross-section $\mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T$ [pb/(GeV/$c$)] for $2.0 < y < 4.5$.

Differential cross-section $\mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y$ [pb] for $p_T < 30$ GeV.

Ratio of double-differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(2S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y ) / ( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(1S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y )$.

Ratio of double-differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(3S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y ) / ( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(1S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y )$.

Ratio of double-differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(3S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y ) / ( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(2S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y )$.

The ratio of differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(iS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T ) / ( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(jS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T )$ for $2.0 < y < 4.5$.

The ratio of differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(iS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y ) / ( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(jS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y )$ for $p_T < 30$ GeV/$c$.

Double-differential cross-section $\mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d}y$ [pb/(GeV/$c$)].

Double-differential cross-section $\mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d}y$ [pb/(GeV/$c$)].

Double-differential cross-section $\mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d}y$ [pb/(GeV/$c$)].

Differential cross-section $\mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T$ [pb/(GeV/$c$)] for $2.0 < y < 4.5$.

Differential cross-section $\mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y$ [pb] for $p_T < 30$ GeV.

Ratio of double-differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(2S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y ) / ( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(1S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y )$.

Ratio of double-differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(3S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y ) / ( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(1S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y )$.

Ratio of double-differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(3S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y ) / ( \mathrm{d}^2 \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(2S) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d} p_T/\mathrm{d} y )$.

The ratio of differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(iS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T ) / ( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(jS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T )$ for $2.0 < y < 4.5$.

The ratio of differential cross-sections $( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(iS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y ) / ( \mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon(jS) \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y )$ for $p_T < 30$ GeV/$c$.

The ratio of differential cross-section $\mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}p_T$ [pb/(GeV/$c$)] for $\sqrt{s}=8$ and $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV in $2.0 < y < 4.5$.

The ratio of differential cross-section $\mathrm{d} \sigma ( pp \to ( \Upsilon \to \mu^+ \mu^- ) X ) / \mathrm{d}y$ for $\sqrt{s}=8$ and $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV and $p_T < 30$ GeV/$c$.

Products of $\overline{B}^0$ production cross-sections and $\mathcal{B}(\overline{B}^0 \rightarrow J\psi \overline{K}^{*0})$ in bins of $p_\rm{T}$ and $y$ in the 2012 data sample.

Asymmetries $a_{\rm p+d}$ $(\%)$ of $\Lambda_b^0$ and $\overline{\Lambda}_b^0$ in bins of $p_\rm{T}$ for the 2011 and 2012 samples.

Asymmetries $a_{\rm p+d}$ $(\%)$ of $\Lambda_b^0$ and $\overline{\Lambda}_b^0$ in bins of $y$ for the 2011 and 2012 samples.