Fit results in SRt1, SRt2 and SRt3 for an integrated luminosity of $36.1 fb^{-1}$. The background normalisation parameters are obtained from the background-only fit in the CRs and are applied to the SRs. Small backgrounds are indicated as Others. Benchmark signal models yields are given for each SR. The uncertainties on the yields include all systematic uncertainties.

95% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section ($\langle\epsilon\mathcal{A}\sigma\rangle^{\rm obs}_{95}$) and on the number of BSM events ($S^{\rm obs}_{95}$ ). The third column ($S^{\rm exp}_{95}$) shows the 95% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last column indicates the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$) and Z (the number of equivalent Gaussian standard deviations).

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution in SRb1. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $\cos{\theta}^*_{bb}$ distribution in SRb2. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $m_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{b,min}}$ distribution in SRt1. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss,sig}}$ distribution in SRt2. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit SM prediction of the $\xi^{+}_{\ell\ell}$ distribution in SRt3. The last bins include overflows, where applicable. All signal region requirements except the one on the distribution shown are applied. The signal region requirement on the distribution shown is indicated by an arrow. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in the SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in the SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRb2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the mediator mass for a DM mass of 1 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Observed exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt1/SRt2 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$. To derive the results for the fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ final state the region among SRt1 and SRt2 providing the best expected sensitivity is used.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Observed xclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudo-scalar model in SRt3 as a function of the DM mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L. and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section over the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_\chi = g_\nu = 1$.

Comparison of the 90% CL limits on the spin-independent DM–nucleon cross-section versus mediator mass between these results and the direct-detection experiments, in the context of the colour-neutral simplified model with scalar mediator. The black line indicates the exclusion contour derived from the observed limits of SRt3. Values inside the contour are excluded.

Expected exclusion limits for colour-charged scalar mediators ($b$-FDM) as a function of the mediator and DM masses for $36.1fb^{-1}$ of data. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L for a coupling assumption $\lambda_b$ yielding the measured relic density.

Exclusion observed limits for colour-charged scalar mediators ($b-$FDM) as a function of the mediator and DM masses for $36.1fb^{-1}$ of data. The limits are calculated at 95% C.L for a coupling assumption $\lambda_b$ yielding the measured relic density.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of sub leading jet $p_{T}$ in SRb1. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $H_{\mathrm T}^{ratio}$ distribution in SRb2. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $\Delta R_{bb}$ in SRt1. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $M_{\mathrm T}^{b,min}$ in SRt2. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Comparison of the data with the post-fit Monte Carlo prediction of $\Delta \phi_{boost}$ in SRt3. The last bin includes overflows. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data over the Monte Carlo prediction. The band includes all systematic uncertainties.

Acceptance of the SRb1 selection of the $b$-FDM model signal samples

Efficiency of the SRb1 selection of the $b$-FDM model signal samples

Acceptance of the SRb2 selection of the colour-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs.

Efficiency of the SRb2 selection to the colour-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs

Efficiency of the SRb2 selection to the colour-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs

Acceptance of SRb2 selection to the colour-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with bottom-quark pairs

Acceptance of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt2 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt1 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Acceptance of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Efficiency of the SRt3 selections to the color-neutral simplified model samples with pseudo-scalar mediator decaying into dark matter pairs produced in association with top quarks.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRb1 selections for the $b$-FDM benchmark model $m(\phi_b,\chi)=(1000,35)$GeV

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRb2 selections for the $b\bar{b} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt1 selections for the $t \bar{t} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt2 selections for the $t \bar{t} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt1 selections for the $t \bar{t} +a$ benchmark model $m(a,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt2 selections for the $t \bar{t} +a$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Number of signal events selected at different stages of the SRt3 selections for the $t \bar{t} +\phi$ benchmark model $m(\phi,\chi)=(20,1)$GeV, $g=1$.

Measured $\gamma+c$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$.

Measured $\gamma+c$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$.

Measured ratio of the $\gamma+b$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$ to that for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$.

Measured ratio of the $\gamma+c$ fiducial differential cross section as a function of $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$ to that for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$.

Statistical correlation between the $\gamma+b$ and the $\gamma+c$ cross sections in a given $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ bin and $|\eta^\gamma|$ region. The two cross sections are correlated as the heavy flavour fractions are extracted simultaneously from a template fit, performed in each $E_\text{T}^\gamma$ bin and separately for the two $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+b$ cross section for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+b$ cross section for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+c$ cross section for $|\eta^\gamma|<1.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Signed shifts of the individual systematic uncertainties on the $\gamma+c$ cross section for $1.56<|\eta^\gamma|<2.37$. The numbers after the name of the uncertainty source refer to the individual component in that uncertainty. Each bin of the MC statistical uncertainty is independent of any other bin. The first four components of the photon energy scale uncertainty are specific to this $|\eta^\gamma|$ region and are independent of the components in the other region. The region is indicated as part of their name to indicate the independence between the $|\eta^\gamma|$ regions. The uncertainties on the prompt photon modelling, non-perturbative QCD models and particle-level migration effects are only varied once and not up and down by their nature, but are symmetrised for the final results. Only uncertainties which have at least a 1% variation in at least one bin of the $\gamma+b$ and $\gamma+c$ cross section measurements, including the ratios, are listed. The others are summed in quadrature and listed as a single entry.

Limit

Limit

Limit

Limit

Limit

Figure 2, right, subfigure b, Transverse mass distribution in the VBF top-quark control regions. For NWA signals, the "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 3, left, subfigure a, Transverse mass distribution in the quasi-inclusive ggF WW control regions. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 3, right, subfigure b, Transverse mass distribution in the quasi-inclusive VBF1Jet WW control regions. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 4, top left, subfigure a, post-fit distributions of the transverse mass mT in the ggF Signal region. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 4, top right, subfigure b, post-fit distributions of the transverse mass mT in the VBF1Jet Signal region. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 4, bottom, subfigure c, post-fit distributions of the transverse mass mT in the VBF2Jet Signal region. The "0" value means lack of statistics.

Figure 5, left, subfigur a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for ggF signals with narrow-width lineshape as a function of the signal mass.

Figure 5, right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for VBF signals with narrow-width lineshape as a function of the signal mass.

Figure 6, Upper limits at 95% CL on the total ggF and VBF Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal at 800 GeV as a function of the ggF cross section divided by the combined ggF and VBF production cross section.

Figure 9, top left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction for a signal with a width of 15% of the mass for the ggF production.

Figure 9, top right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs boson production cross section times branching fraction for a signal with a width of 15% of the mass for the VBF production.

Figure 10, left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a GM signal.

Figure 11, left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a HVT qqA signal.

Figure 11, right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a HVT VBF signal.

Figure 12, bottom, subfigure c, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for an EML spin-2 VBF signal.

Figure 12, top right, subfigure b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a graviton signal with coupling parameter equals 0.5

Figure 12, top left, subfigure a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the resonance production cross section times branching fraction for a graviton signal with coupling parameter equals 1.0

Auxiliary material Figure 2e, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF2J event categories as a function of the signal mass for the ggF or qqA production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2f, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF2J event categories for different kinds of VBF signals production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2c, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF1J event categories as a function of the signal mass for the ggF or qqA production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2d, Event selection efficiencies in the VBF1J event categories for different kinds of VBF signals production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2a, Event selection efficiencies in the ggF event categories as a function of the signal mass for the ggF or qqA production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 2b, Event selection efficiencies in the ggF event categories for different kinds of VBF signals production. The "0" efficiency mass point means there's no such signal sample for the corresponding model.

Auxiliary material Figure 6a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 5% of the mass for the ggF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 6c, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 10% of the mass for the ggF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 6b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 5% of the mass for the VBF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 6d, Upper limits at 95% CL on the Higgs production cross section times branching fraction in the evmuv channel, for a signal with a width of 10% of the mass for the VBF production.

Auxiliary material Figure 7b, Upper limits at 95% CL on the total ggF and VBF Higgs production cross section times branching fraction for a signal at 1.8 TeV as a function of the ggF cross section over the combined ggF and VBF production cross section.

Auxiliary material Figure 7a, Upper limits at 95% CL on the total ggF and VBF Higgs production cross section times branching fraction for a signal at 200 GeV as a function of the ggF cross section over the combined ggF and VBF production cross section.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be at least one b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Drell Yan production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Zprime boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass and the relative strength of the b-associated production.

Ratio of the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction for alternate Zprime models with respect to the SSM, both observed and expected are shown.

Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance and acceptance times efficiency for a heavy gauge boson produced by Drell Yan as a function of the gauge boson mass.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

mass distribution

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.

Acceptance in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

Efficiency in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

Total systematic and theoretical signal uncertainty in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

The observed CLS values in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

The number of generated GMSB signal events in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane. Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

The total signal production cross section in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane in pb Note that bins with zero content in both Lambda abd Tan(Beta) have been omitted.

Expected 95% C.L. exclusion limits in the Mmess = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu > 0, Cgrav = 1 slice of GMSB in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane.

Observed 95% C.L. exclusion limits in the Mmess = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu > 0, Cgrav = 1 slice of GMSB in the Lambda and tan(beta) plane.

The distrubution of second leading jet pT for SR1 for the combined EE and MUMU channels. Tabulated are the observed Data rates and the Standard Model predictions as well as the distributions expected for two signal scenarios, both with an STOP mass of 250 GeV, and NEUTRALINO1 masses of 100 GeV and 220 GeV respectively. The last pT bin includes the number of overflow events for both data abd SM expectation.

The observed exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The +1sigma contour around the median of the expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The -1sigma contour around the median of the expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L. (using the CLs prescription) in the stop-neutralino1 mass plane, assuming direct stop pair production in the framework of GMSB models with light higgsinos.

The acceptance, using prompt leptons only, in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The efficiancy in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The total systematic uncertainty, including both theoretical and experimental uncertainties, in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The CLs values in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane for SR1 and SR2.

The number of generated MC events for each signal point in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane before applying the dilepton filter efficiency. After that, 25K events per point are simulated.

The cross section of stop1-stop1 in the stop1-neutralino1 mass plane.

Transverse momentum distribution for the second leading lepton for events in the SR2 signal region for DATA and SM predictions.

Transverse momentum distribution for the third leading lepton for events in the SR1 signal region for DATA and SM predictions.

Transverse momentum distribution for the third leading lepton for events in the SR2 signal region for DATA and SM predictions.

Missing transverse energy for events in the SR1 signal region for DATA and SM predictions.

Missing transverse energy for events in the SR2 signal region for DATA and SM predictions.

Invariant mass of the same-flavour-opposite-sign (SFOS) lepton pair for events in the SR1 signal region for DATA and SM predictions.

The Cross Section in signal region SR1 for the SUSY pMSSM model with M1=100 GeV grid.

The Cross Section in signal region SR1 for the SUSY simplified model grid.

The Number of generated Events in signal region SR1 for the SUSY pMSSM model with M1=100 GeV grid.

The Number of generated Events in signal region SR1 for the SUSY simplified model grid.

The Efficiency in signal region SR1 for the SUSY pMSSM model with M1=100 GeV grid.

The Efficiency in signal region SR1 for the SUSY simplified model grid.

The Acceptance in signal region SR1 for the SUSY pMSSM model with M1=100 GeV grid.

The Acceptance in signal region SR1 for the SUSY simplified model grid.

The Acceptance*Efficiency in signal region SR1 for the SUSY pMSSM model with M1=100 GeV grid.

The Acceptance*Efficiency in signal region SR1 for the SUSY simplified model grid.

The Systematic Uncertainty of the data (excluding the Monte Carlo) in signal region SR1 for the SUSY pMSSM model with M1=100 GeV grid.

The Systematic Uncertainty of the data (excluding the Monte Carlo) in signal region SR1 for the SUSY simplified model grid.

CL values for the pMSSM with M1=100 GeV model grid for the SR1 signal region.

CL values for the simplified model model grid for the SR1 signal region.