The corrected transverse momentum distribution of KS mesons at 900 GeV.

The corrected rapidity distribution of KS mesons at 900 GeV.

The corrected multiplicity distribution of KS mesons at 900 GeV.

The corrected transverse momentum distribution of LAMBDA baryons at 7000 GeV.

The corrected rapidity distribution of LAMBDA baryons at 7000 GeV.

The corrected multiplicity distribution of LAMBDA baryons at 7000 GeV.

The corrected transverse momentum distribution of LAMBDA baryons at 900 GeV.

The corrected rapidity distribution of LAMBDA baryons at 900 GeV.

The corrected multiplicity distribution of LAMBDA baryons at 900 GeV.

The production ratio between LAMBDABAR and LAMBDA baryons at 7000 GeV as a function of rapidity.

The production ratio between LAMBDABAR and LAMBDA baryons at 7000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum.

The production ratio between LAMBDABAR and LAMBDA baryons at 900 GeV as a function of rapidity.

The production ratio between LAMBDABAR and LAMBDA baryons at 900 GeV as a function of transverse momentum.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total uncertainty on the measured values of $\sigma(tq)$, $\sigma(\bar{t}q)$, $R_t$, and $\sigma(tq+\bar{t}q)$. The evaluation of the systematic uncertainties has a statistical uncertainty of $0.3\,\%$. Uncertainties contributing less than $1.0\,\%$ are marked with "$<1$" in the paper. To provide numerical values for this table in HEPdata, these uncertainties are approximated with $\pm 0.5\,\%$. This approximation is applied to all measurements for the following uncertainties$:$ JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by-jets, JES pileup, $b$-JES, jet vertex fraction, mistag efficiency and $W+\;$jets shape variation. For the measurement of $\sigma(tq)$ the approximation is applied in addition to the following uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $c$-tagging efficiency, $t\bar{t}$ generator + parton shower and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR. For the measurement of $\sigma(\bar{t}q)$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR. For the measurement of $R_t$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES detector, $b$-tagging efficiency, $c$-tagging efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance and $tq$ scale variations. For the measurement of $\sigma(tq+\bar{t}q)$ the approximation is applied in addition to these uncertainties$:$ JES flavor response, $c$-tagging efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $t\bar{t}$ generator + parton shower and $t\bar{t}$ ISR/FSR.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections and normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections as functions of ABS(YRAP(T)).

The cross sections for top-quark and top-antiquark production in the t-channel, together with the cross-section ratio.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections and normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross sections as functions of ABS(YRAP(TBAR)).

Parametrization factors for the $m_{t}$ dependence [see Eq. (4) in the paper] of $\sigma(tq)$, $\sigma(\bar tq)$, and $\sigma(t q+\bar t q)$.

The cross sections for top-quark and top-antiquark production in the t-channel, together with the cross-section ratio.

The value of $|V_{tb}|^{2}$ is extracted by dividing the measured value of $\sigma(t q+\bar t q)$ by the prediction of the approximate NNLO calculation. The experimental and theoretical uncertainties are added in quadrature.

Event yields for the 2-jet-$\ell^{+}$ and 2-jet-$\ell^{-}$ HPR channels. The expectation for the signal and background yields correspond to the result of the binned maximum-likelihood fit described in Sec. $\mathrm{VI~D}$ in the paper. The uncertainty of the expectations is the normalization uncertainty of each process after the fit, as described in Sec. $\mathrm{VII~F}$ in the paper.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell \nu b)$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell \nu b)$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-antiquark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $|y(t)|$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $|y(\ell \nu b)|$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-quark $|y|$ distribution.

Migration matrix relating the parton level $|y(\bar t)|$ shown on the $y$ axis and the reconstruction level $|y(\ell \nu b)|$ shown on the $x$ axis for the top-antiquark $|y|$ distribution.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Normalized differential t-channel top-quark production cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$ with the uncertainties for each bin given in percent.

Comparison between the measured differential cross sections and the predictions from the NLO calculation using the MSTW2008 PDF set. For each variable and prediction a $\chi^{2}$ value is calculated with HERAfitter using the covariance matrix of each measured spectrum. The theory uncertainties of the predictions are treated as uncorrelated. The number of degrees of freedom (NDF) is equal to the number of bins in the measured spectrum.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, mistag efficiency, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(\bar t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. The JES $\eta$ intercalibration uncertainty has a sign switch from the first to the second bin. For the $tq$ generator $+$ parton shower uncertainty a sign switch is denoted with $\mp$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $c-$tagging efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, $b-$JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, and $t \bar{t}$ generator. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content$:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, b-JES, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $b-$tagging efficiency, $c-$tagging efficiency, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Detailed list of the contribution of each source of uncertainty to the total relative uncertainty on the measured $\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma}{\mathrm{d}|y(\bar t)|}$ distribution given in percent for each bin. The list includes only those uncertainties that contribute with more than $1\%$. Sign switches within one uncertainty are denoted with $\mp$ and $\pm$. The following uncertainties contribute to the total uncertainty with less than $1\%$ to each bin content $:$ JES detector, JES statistical, JES physics modeling, JES mixed detector and modeling, JES close-by jets, JES pileup, JES flavor composition, JES flavor response, b-JES, jet energy resolution, jet-vertex fraction, $b/\bar{b}$ acceptance, $b-$tagging efficiency, $c-$ tagging efficiency, mistag efficiency, $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ modeling, lepton uncertainties, $W+$ jets shape variation, $t \bar{t}$ generator, $t \bar{t}$ ISR/FSR, and unfolding. In cases when the uncertainty is report to be "$<1\%$" in the table of the paper the uncertainty is approximated by a value of $0.5\%$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the differential cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\bar t)$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $|y(t)|$.

Statistical correlation matrices for the normalized differential cross section as a function of $|y(\bar t)|$.

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.