Data and SM predictions in SRs for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in SR1Lbb-Medium. All SRs selections but the one on the quantity shown are applied. All uncertainties are included in the uncertainty band. Example SUSY models are superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ before the final requirement on $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in SR1Lyy-a. The expected contributions from both the peaking and non-peaking backgrounds are shown as stacked colored histograms. Two example SUSY models are superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Distributions of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ before the final requirement on $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in SR1Lyy-b. The expected contributions from both the peaking and non-peaking backgrounds are shown as stacked colored histograms. Two example SUSY models are superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Observed and predicted distributions for $m_{jj}$ in SRSS-j1. All SRs selections but the one on the quantity shown are applied. All uncertainties are included in the uncertainty band. An example SUSY model is superimposed for illustrative purposes.

Observed and predicted distributions for $m_{T2}$ in SRSS-j23. All SRs selections but the one on the quantity shown are applied. All uncertainties are included in the uncertainty band. An example SUSY model is superimposed for illustrative purposes.

The observed exclusion for the $0lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $0lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for the $1lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $1lb\bar{b}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ channel. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) - m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 130$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $0lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $0lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The observed cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

The expected cross-section exclusion as a function of the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}$/$\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$ masses for the $3l$ analysis for signal models assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}) = 0$ GeV.

Acceptance for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-Low signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-Low signal region.

Acceptance for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-High signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $0lb\bar{b}$ SRHad-High signal region.

Upper cross section limits for the $0lb\bar{b}$ analysis.

Acceptance for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Low signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiency for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Low signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Medium signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiency for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-Medium signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-High signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiency for $1lb\bar{b}$ SR1Lbb-High signal region. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Upper cross section limits for the $1lb\bar{b}$ analysis.

Acceptance for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-a. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-a.

Acceptance for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-b. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $1l\gamma\gamma$ signal region SR1Lyy-b.

Upper cross section limits for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ analysis.

Acceptance for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j1. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j1. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j23. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ signal region SRSS-j23. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-1J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-1J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ SFOS signal region SR3L-SFOS-0Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-0J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-0J. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Ja. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Acceptance for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Efficiencies for $3L$ DFOS signal region SR3L-DFOS-1Jb. Note that the acceptance is relative to the total chargino-neutralino production cross section.

Upper cross section limits for the $l^{\pm}l^{\pm}$ analysis.

Upper cross section limits for the $3l$ analysis.

Event selection cutflow for SM background (pre-fit) and representative signal samples for the $0lb\bar{b}$ SR. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 50K and 44K events, respectively. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W \rightarrow qq'$ decays. ``All events" for SUSY scenarios represent the total number of signal events for the models considered taking into account the BR of $W \rightarrow qq'$ (0.674) and $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ (0.582).

Event selection cutflow for SM background (pre-fit) and representative signal samples for the $1lb\bar{b}$ channel. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 28K, 29K and 29K events, respectively. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W \rightarrow l \nu$ decays. ``All events" for SUSY scenarios represent the total number of signal events for the models considered taking into account the BR of $W \rightarrow l \nu$ (0.324) and $h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ (0.582).

Event selection cutflow is presented for SM background (pre-fit) and three signal scenarios for the $1l\gamma\gamma$ channel SRs. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. The uncertainties only include statistical uncertainties. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 10K events in all cases. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and $W \rightarrow l \nu$ decays. The data-driven-estimated non-peaking background is not evaluated at each stage of the selection, hence only the peaking background cutflow is presented.

Event selection cutflow is presented for one signal scenario for SRSS-j23. The model with next-to-lightest neutralino mass of 175 GeV and massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ with 100% BR is considered. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 75K events. Samples are produced with a generator filter which selects events with at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 7$ GeV. ``2SS leptons" indicates the selection of two same-sign electrons or muons as described in the text (Section 6.4).

Event selection cutflow is presented for one signal scenario for SRSS-j1. The model with next-to-lightest neutralino mass of 175 GeV and massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ with 100% BR is considered. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 75K events. Samples are produced with a generator filter which selects events with at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 7$ GeV. ``2SS leptons" indicates the selection of two same-sign electrons or muons as described in the text (Section 6.4).

Event selection cut-flow is presented for one signal scenario for each signal regions. The model with next-to-lightest neutralino mass of 150 GeV and massless LSP with 100 \% BR is considered. The MC statistics for the signal samples is 123K events. Samples are produced with a generator filter which selects events with at least two leptons with pT $>$ 7 GeV. ``3L+Trigger" indicates three-lepton and trigger requirements. ``Preselection" includes the veto on bjets, ETmiss above 20 GeV and invariant mass of the three leptons above 20 GeV.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the single lepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta R$ between the photon and the lepton in the single lepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon pT in the dilepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the dilepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of minimum $\Delta R) between the photon and the leptons in the dilepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the dilepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The measured normalized differential cross section as a function of $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the dilepton channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into five components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, the ttbar modelling uncertainty, the other background estimation uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon pT in the single lepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the single lepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta R$ between the photon and the lepton in the single lepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon pT in the dilepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the dilepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the dilepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the dilepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The total correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the dilepton channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.

The statistical correlation matrix of all the measured normalized differential cross sections in the single lepton channel.

The statistical correlation matrix of all the measured normalized differential cross sections in the dilepton channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contour in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion, for the tested signal mass hypotheses in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane, for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $ee$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Majorana $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $ee$ channel.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on cross-section times branching ratio to the $\mu\mu$ final state for the Keung-Senjanovic process in the $m_{W_R}–m_{N_R}$ plane for the Dirac $N_R$ neutrino $\mu\mu$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $e^{\pm}e^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the SS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $e^{\pm}e^{\mp}$ channel.

Efficiencies times acceptance for signal region selection as a function of the signal $W_R$ and $N_R$ masses for the OS $\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$ channel.

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.