Pre-fit MC statistical uncertainties per bin. These values are used to quantify the MC statistical uncertainty contributions to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ based on elements from the covariance matrix obtained in the profile likelihood fit. Each MC statistical contribution is estimated by dividing the relevant covariance matrix entry (see Table 2) by the corresponding pre-fit MC statistical uncertainty for that bin.

The contribution of each source of systematic uncertainty to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ is provided. Each source's contribution is taken directly from the relevant element of the covariance matrix for the profile likelihood fit to $\overline{m_J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$ using data. The sign of the effect of each uncertainty is included.

The fitted $m_t$ is provided for each replica generated using bootstrapping. Each replica is a 3D histogram of $m_{J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$, where $m_{J}$ has 50 bins between 145.0 GeV and 205.0 GeV. This method uses the BootstrapGenerator class in ROOT to initialise a pseudo-random number generator for each event, which is seeded by the value of the eventNumber and runNumber variables for a given event in the input dataset. The pseudo-random numbers are drawn from a Poisson distribution with rate parameter equal to 1. These are used to fluctuate the amount by which each replica histogram is filled. There are 1000 replicas, numbered from 0 to 999.

The performance of jet energy resolution (JER) for jets with |y| < 2.1 evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data. The fit parameters are listed in a sperate table (Extras 1)

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for per-pair normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for absolutely normalized xJ distributions in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

The relative magnitude of systematic uncertainties for rho distributions for leading jets in 0-10% Xe+Xe centrality

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution evaluated in four centrality intervals and given pT1 interval.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Pb+Pb collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

Absolutely normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same centrality intervals.

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of leading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

The ratios of Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb pair nuclear-modification factors, rho, evaluated as a function of subleading jet pT in the same SUM ETFCal intervals (selecting equivalent event activity)

Parameter a,b, and c from JER fits in Figure 1b.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

Per-pair normalized xJ distribution in Xe+Xe collisions for selected Pb+Pb centrality and pT1 bin.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

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.

Ratios of $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ distributions measured in different centrality intervals to that in the peripheral (60–90%) centrality interval. The first uncertainty is statistical the second systematic.

Charged-particle pseudorapidity distribution $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ as a function of centrality (related to the $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$ by Table 3) for several $\eta$-regions. The first uncertainty is statistical the second is the systematic uncertianty without centrality determination uncertainty, the third is the centrality determination systematic uncertainty. The centrality determination systematic uncertainty shall not be used in ratios to any quantity determined in the same centrality interval, e.g. for $dN_{ch}/d\eta/(0.5 N_{\mathrm{part}})$ or in ratios of other particle yields. This uncertainty shall be used for comparing to results of other experiments.

Measured non-prompt J/psi differential cross-section multiplied by branching ratio. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second is the luminosity.

Measured prompt J/psi differential cross-section multiplied by branching ratio. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second is the luminosity.

Measured non-prompt J/psi differential cross-section multiplied by branching ratio. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second is the luminosity.

Measured forward-backward production ratio.

Measured forward-backward production ratio.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 10).

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 10).

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different centrality intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Rcp in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 12).

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Rcp in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 12).

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Rcp in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 12).

Rcp in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 13).

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 13).

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals (not shown in Fig. 13).

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different centrality intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Raa as a function of <Npart>.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for pp.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb (not shown in Fig. 17).

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Charged-particle spectra in different eta intervals for Pb+Pb.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals (not shown in Fig. 18).

Raa in different eta intervals.

Raa in different eta intervals.