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.

Differential cross section as a function of the 2nd leading jet PT for events with jet multiplicity >= 2.

Differential cross section as a function of the 3rd leading jet PT for events with jet multiplicity >= 3.

Differential cross section as a function of the 4th leading jet PT for events with jet multiplicity >= 4.

Differential cross section as a function of the scalar sum of the jet PTs (HT) for events with jet multiplicity >= 2.

Differential cross section as a function of the scalar sum of the jet PTs (HT) for events with jet multiplicity >= 3.

Differential cross section as a function of the scalar sum of the jet PTs (HT) for events with jet multiplicity >= 4.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the leading jet PT for a minimum non-leading jet PT of 60 GeV. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the leading jet PT for a minimum non-leading jet PT of 80 GeV. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the leading jet PT for a minimum non-leading jet PT of 110 GeV. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the leading jet PT with R=0.4 for a minimum non-leading jet PT of 60 GeV. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the leading jet PT with R=0.4 for a minimum non-leading jet PT of 80 GeV. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the leading jet PT with R=0.4 for a minimum non-leading jet PT of 110 GeV. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the sum of the PTs of the two leading jets with R=0.6. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

3-to-2 jet differential cross section ratio as a function of the sum of the PTs of the two leading jets with R=0.4. Also tabulated are the theoretical values from a NLO pQCD calculation with total systematic error.

Inclusive J/psi production cross-section as a function of J/psi pT in the J/psi rapidity (|y|) bin 1.5<|y|<2. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive J/psi production cross-section as a function of J/psi pT in the J/psi rapidity (|y|) bin 0.75<|y|<1.5. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Inclusive J/psi production cross-section as a function of J/psi pT in the J/psi rapidity (|y|) bin |y|<0.75. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic and the third encapsulates any possible variation due to spin-alignment from the unpolarised central value.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity |y|<0.75 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.}.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 0.75<|y|<1.5 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/-0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 1.5<|y|<2 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/-0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.

Non-prompt to inclusive production cross-section fraction fB as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 2<|y|<2.4 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0). The spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses, plus the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta =+/-0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic, the third number is the uncertainty due to spin-alignment.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity |y|<0.75 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 0.75<|y|<1.5 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 1.5<|y|<2 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Non-prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 2<|y|<2.4 under the assumption that prompt and non-prompt J/psi production is unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0), and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of non-prompt cross-sections within lambda_theta = +/- 0.1. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to FONLL predictions.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity |y|<0.75. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 0.75<|y|<1.5. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 1.5<|y|<2. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Prompt J/psi production cross-sections as a function of J/psi pT for J/psi rapidity 2<|y|<2.4. The central value assumes unpolarised (lambda_theta = 0) prompt and non-prompt production, and the spin-alignment envelope spans the range of possible prompt cross-sections under various polarisation hypotheses. The first quoted uncertainty is statistical, the second uncertainty is systematic. Comparison is made to the Colour Evaporation Model prediction.

Unweighted J/psi candidate yields in bins of $J/psi transverse momentum and rapidity. Uncertainties are statistical only.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute J/psi rapidities within 2<|y|<2.4. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J\psi.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute J/psi rapidities within 1.5<|y|<2. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J/psi.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute J/psi rapidities within 0.75<|y|<1.5. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J/psi.

Summary table of all sources of considered systematic uncertainty and statistical uncertainty (as a percentage) on the corrected inclusive J/psi production cross-section, for absolute rapidities within |y|<0.75. The sources of systematic error shown are, in order, Acceptance, Muon recognition, Trigger, Fitting and the Total systematics. Also shown in the last error is the possible envelope of variation the central result due to uncertainty on spin-alignment of the J/psi.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin |y|<0.75, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin 0.75<|y|<1.5, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin 1.75<|y|<2.0, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Breakdown of sources of systematic uncertainty on the non-prompt J/psi fraction measurements, for the bin 2.0<|y|<2.4, as a function of the J/psi pT.

Distribution of the heavy particle Mass estimated from the Tile Calorimeter data plus the simulated background and model estimates for three gluino masses. A cut of BETA < 1 is imposed.;.

Distribution of the heavy particle Mass estimated from the Pixel detector data plus the data driven background and model estimates for two gluino masses.;.

Distribution of the heavy particle Mass estimated from the Tile Calorimeter data plus the data driven background and model estimates for two gluino masses.;.

7 TeV Particle density vs. Delta(phi) with leading particle pT > 1 GeV.

7 TeV Particle density vs. Delta(phi) with leading particle pT > 2 GeV.

7 TeV Particle density vs. Delta(phi) with leading particle pT > 3 GeV.

900 GeV Transverse region Particle density vs. leading particle pT.

7 TeV Transverse region Particle density vs. leading particle pT.

900 GeV Transverse region scalar pT sum density vs. leading particle pT.

7 TeV Transverse region scalar pT sum density vs. leading particle pT.