CMSPASHIG16020  
Updated measurements of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV in pp collisions at CMS.  
CMS Collaboration  
August 2016  
Abstract: An observation of the Higgs boson production for the two photon decay channel with the 2016 LHC Run2 data is described. The analysis is performed using the dataset recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC from pp collisions at centreofmass energy of 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 12.9 fb$^{1}$. The observed significance for the standard model Higgs boson at the Run 1 ATLAS+CMS combined $m_{\mathrm{H}} =$ 125.09 GeV is 5.6$ \sigma$, where 6.2$ \sigma$ is expected. A maximum significance of 6.1$ \sigma$ is observed at 126.0 GeV. The bestfit signal strength relative to the standard model prediction is 0.95 $\pm$ 0.20 = 0.95 $\pm$ 0.17 (stat) $^{+0.10}_{0.07}$ (syst) $^{+0.08}_{0.05}$ (theo) when the mass parameter is profiled in the fit, and 0.91 $\pm$ 0.20 = 0.91 $\pm$ 0.17 (stat) $^{+0.09}_{0.07}$ (syst) $^{+0.08}_{0.05}$ (theo) when it is fixed to $m_{\mathrm{H}} =$ 125.09 GeV. The fiducial cross section is measured to be $\hat{\sigma}_{fid} =$ 69 $^{+18}_{22}$ fb = 69 $^{+16}_{22}$ (stat) $^{+8} _{6}$ (syst) fb, where the standard model theoretical prediction is 73.8 $\pm$ 3.8 fb.  
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Comparison of the dielectron invariant mass distributions in data and simulation for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events where electrons are reconstructed as photons. The events are split into categories according to the $\eta $ and $ {R_\mathrm {9}}$ of the electrons. The simulated distribution is normalized to the integral of the data distribution in the range 87 GeV $ < m_{e^{+}e^{}} < $ 93 GeV. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Comparison of the dielectron invariant mass distributions in data and simulation for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events where electrons are reconstructed as photons. The events are split into categories according to the $\eta $ and $ {R_\mathrm {9}}$ of the electrons. The simulated distribution is normalized to the integral of the data distribution in the range 87 GeV $ < m_{e^{+}e^{}} < $ 93 GeV. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
Comparison of the dielectron invariant mass distributions in data and simulation for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events where electrons are reconstructed as photons. The events are split into categories according to the $\eta $ and $ {R_\mathrm {9}}$ of the electrons. The simulated distribution is normalized to the integral of the data distribution in the range 87 GeV $ < m_{e^{+}e^{}} < $ 93 GeV. 
png pdf 
Figure 1d:
Comparison of the dielectron invariant mass distributions in data and simulation for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events where electrons are reconstructed as photons. The events are split into categories according to the $\eta $ and $ {R_\mathrm {9}}$ of the electrons. The simulated distribution is normalized to the integral of the data distribution in the range 87 GeV $ < m_{e^{+}e^{}} < $ 93 GeV. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Comparison of the true vertex identification efficiency and the average estimated vertex probability as a function of the reconstructed diphoton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ in simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ events with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. Events are weighted according to the crosssections of the different production modes and to match distributions of pileup and location of primary vertices in data. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Comparison of the true vertex identification efficiency and the average estimated vertex probability as a function of the number of primary vertices in simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ events with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. Events are weighted according to the crosssections of the different production modes and to match distributions of pileup and location of primary vertices in data. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
(a) $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \text { ID}}$ score of the lowerscoring photon of diphoton pairs with an invariant mass in the range 100 $ < m_{\gamma \gamma } < $ 180 GeV, for events passing the preselection in the 13TeV dataset (points), and for simulated background events (blue histogram). Histograms are also shown for different components of the simulated background, in which there are either two, one, or zero prompt candidate photons. The sum of all background distributions, generated at leading order, is scaled up to data. The red histogram corresponds to simulated Higgs boson signal events. (b) $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \text { ID}}$ score for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events in data and simulation, where the electrons are reconstructed as photons. The systematic uncertainty applied to the shape from simulation (hashed region) is also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
(a) $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \text { ID}}$ score of the lowerscoring photon of diphoton pairs with an invariant mass in the range 100 $ < m_{\gamma \gamma } < $ 180 GeV, for events passing the preselection in the 13TeV dataset (points), and for simulated background events (blue histogram). Histograms are also shown for different components of the simulated background, in which there are either two, one, or zero prompt candidate photons. The sum of all background distributions, generated at leading order, is scaled up to data. The red histogram corresponds to simulated Higgs boson signal events. (b) $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \text { ID}}$ score for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events in data and simulation, where the electrons are reconstructed as photons. The systematic uncertainty applied to the shape from simulation (hashed region) is also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
(a) Transformed $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \gamma }$ classifier score in data (black points) and simulation (stacked histograms) for events in the region 100 $ < m_{\gamma \gamma } < $ 180 GeV. (b) Transformed $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \gamma }$ classifier score for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events, where electrons are reconstructed as photons, in data (black points) and simulation (filled histogram). The hashed region represents the systematic uncertainty resulting from the combination of the uncertainties on the $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \text { ID}}$ and the photon energy resolution. The gray bands represent events rejected in the analysis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
(a) Transformed $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \gamma }$ classifier score in data (black points) and simulation (stacked histograms) for events in the region 100 $ < m_{\gamma \gamma } < $ 180 GeV. (b) Transformed $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \gamma }$ classifier score for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events, where electrons are reconstructed as photons, in data (black points) and simulation (filled histogram). The hashed region represents the systematic uncertainty resulting from the combination of the uncertainties on the $\text {BDT}_{\gamma \text { ID}}$ and the photon energy resolution. The gray bands represent events rejected in the analysis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Parametrized signal shape for the best resolution category (a) and for all categories combined together (b) for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }= $ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Parametrized signal shape for the best resolution category (a) and for all categories combined together (b) for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }= $ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
The efficiency$\times $acceptance of the signal model as a function of $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }$ for all categories combined. 
png pdf 
Figure 8a:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in the four untagged categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 8b:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in the four untagged categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 8c:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in the four untagged categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 8d:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in the four untagged categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in VBF and $\mathrm {t\bar{t}H}$ categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in VBF and $\mathrm {t\bar{t}H}$ categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 9c:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in VBF and $\mathrm {t\bar{t}H}$ categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 9d:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in VBF and $\mathrm {t\bar{t}H}$ categories are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 10a:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits for all categories summed (left) and where the categories are summed weighted by their sensitivity (right). The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 10b:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits for all categories summed (left) and where the categories are summed weighted by their sensitivity (right). The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
The observed pvalue (black) is compared to the SM expectation across the fit range 120130GeV, where the SM Higgs boson is assumed to have a mass $m_{\mathrm{H}}=125.09$GeV (blue). The red line shows the maximum significance for each mass hypothesis in the range $120$GeV$ 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
The likelihood scan for the signal strength where the value of the standard model Higgs boson mass is profiled in the fit. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Signal strength modifiers measured in each category (black points) for profiled $m_{\mathrm{H}}$, compared to the overall signal strength (green band) and to the SM expectation (dashed red line). 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Signal strength modifiers measured for each process (black points) for profiled $m_{\mathrm{H}}$, compared to the overall signal strength (green band) and to the SM expectation (dashed red line). Since this analysis does include any categories targeting the VH process, we impose $\mu _{\text {VH}} =1$. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
The twodimensional bestfit (black cross) of the signal strengths for fermionic (ggH, $\mathrm {t\bar{t}H}$) and bosonic (VBF, ZH, WH) production modes compared to the SM expectations (red diamond). The Higgs boson mass is profiled in the fit. The solid (dashed) line represents the 1 standard deviation (2 standard deviation) confidence region. 
png pdf 
Figure 16a:
The distribution of the $ {\sigma _{M}/M }_{\textup {decorr}} $ for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events, where electrons are reconstructed as photons, for events where both electrons are reconstructed in the ECAL barrel region (a) and for all remaining events (b). The red hashed region represents the systematic uncertainty resulting from the impact on the mass of the systematic uncertainty assigned to the perphoton energy resolution. Events in the gray region are discarded. 
png pdf 
Figure 16b:
The distribution of the $ {\sigma _{M}/M }_{\textup {decorr}} $ for Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events, where electrons are reconstructed as photons, for events where both electrons are reconstructed in the ECAL barrel region (a) and for all remaining events (b). The red hashed region represents the systematic uncertainty resulting from the impact on the mass of the systematic uncertainty assigned to the perphoton energy resolution. Events in the gray region are discarded. 
png pdf 
Figure 17a:
Fits of the distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for a simulated sample of Higgs bosons at $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 125 GeV for the category with the best resolution (left) and for all categories combined. 
png pdf 
Figure 17b:
Fits of the distributions of the diphoton invariant mass for a simulated sample of Higgs bosons at $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 125 GeV for the category with the best resolution (left) and for all categories combined. 
png pdf 
Figure 18a:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in each of the categories used for the fiducial analysis are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 18b:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in each of the categories used for the fiducial analysis are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 18c:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits in each of the categories used for the fiducial analysis are shown. The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 19a:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits for all the fiducial analysis categories summed (a) and where the categories are summed weighted by their sensitivity (b). The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 19b:
Data points (black) and signal plus background model fits for all the fiducial analysis categories summed (a) and where the categories are summed weighted by their sensitivity (b). The 1 standard deviation (green) and 2 standard deviation bands (yellow) include the uncertainties of the fit. The bottom plot shows the residuals after background subtraction. 
png pdf 
Figure 20:
A likelihood scan for the fiducial cross section where the value of the standard model Higgs boson mass is profiled in the fit. The red line and hashed area represent the SM expected fiducial cross section and uncertainty for a Higgs boson of mass $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 125.09 GeV. The normalisation has been set using the latest values from [18] and the acceptance is defined using the aMC@NLO generatorlevel quantities. 
png pdf 
Figure 21a:
Parametrized signal shapes for the inclusive categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 21b:
Parametrized signal shapes for the inclusive categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 21c:
Parametrized signal shapes for the inclusive categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 21d:
Parametrized signal shapes for the inclusive categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 22a:
Parametrized signal shapes for the VBF and TTH categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 22b:
Parametrized signal shapes for the VBF and TTH categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 22c:
Parametrized signal shapes for the VBF and TTH categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 22d:
Parametrized signal shapes for the VBF and TTH categories, for a simulated H$\to \gamma \gamma $ signal sample with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}} }=$ 125 GeV. The black points represent weighted simulation events and the blue lines are the corresponding models. Also shown are the $\sigma _{eff}$ value (half the width of the narrowest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution), FWHM and the corresponding interval. 
png pdf 
Figure 23a:
Twodimensional likelihood scans of $\kappa _{f}$ versus $\kappa _{V}$ (a) and $\kappa _{g}$ versus $\kappa _{\gamma }$ (b) are shown. The variables $\kappa _{V}$ and $\kappa _{f}$ are, respectively, the coupling modifiers of the Higgs boson to vector bosons and to fermions while $\kappa _{\gamma }$ and $\kappa _{g}$ are the effective coupling modifiers to photons and to gluons [36]. All four variables are expressed relative to the SM expectations. The mass of the Higgs boson is profiled in the fits. For each scan, the value of the Higgs boson mass is profiled The standard model expectation is marked with a red diamond. 
png pdf 
Figure 23b:
Twodimensional likelihood scans of $\kappa _{f}$ versus $\kappa _{V}$ (a) and $\kappa _{g}$ versus $\kappa _{\gamma }$ (b) are shown. The variables $\kappa _{V}$ and $\kappa _{f}$ are, respectively, the coupling modifiers of the Higgs boson to vector bosons and to fermions while $\kappa _{\gamma }$ and $\kappa _{g}$ are the effective coupling modifiers to photons and to gluons [36]. All four variables are expressed relative to the SM expectations. The mass of the Higgs boson is profiled in the fits. For each scan, the value of the Higgs boson mass is profiled The standard model expectation is marked with a red diamond. 
png pdf 
Figure 24:
The figure shows the result of performing a onedimensional likelihood scan of the signal strength for various values of $m_{\mathrm{H}}$. The green band represents the uncertainties on the value of the signal strength at each point. 
png pdf 
Figure 25:
The twodimensional bestfit (black cross) of the signal strengths for fermionic (ggH, $\mathrm {t\bar{t}H}$) and bosonic (VBF, ZH, WH) production modes compared to the SM expectations (red diamond). The Higgs boson mass is profiled in the fit. The solid (dashed) line represents the 1 standard deviation (2 standard deviation) confidence region. The axis ranges have been chosen to be exactly the same as those from the equivalent plot from Run 1 (Fig.23 in [9]). 
png pdf 
Figure 26:
The results of the measurements of the fiducial cross section by CMS at 8TeV (from the Run 1 analysis [9]) and (13TeV from this analysis) are shown. The black markers represent the bestfit value of the fiducial cross section for the bestfit mass in each case, along with the corresponding uncertainties. The red lines represent the size of the systematic component on the uncertainty. The blue dashed line and shading represent the SM expected fiducial cross section and uncertainty for a Higgs boson of mass $m_{\mathrm{H}}=125.09$ GeV. The normalisation has been set using the latest values from [18] and the acceptance is defined using the aMC@NLO generatorlevel quantities in both cases. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Preselection requirements. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Photon preselection efficiencies measured in four photon categories, obtained with a tag and probe technique using Z$\rightarrow $ e$^{+}$e$^{}$ events after applying all requirements except the electron veto. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
The expected number of signal events per category and the percentage breakdown per production mode in that category. The $\sigma _{eff}$, computed as the smallest interval containing 68.3% of the invariant mass distribution, and $\sigma _{HM}$, computed as the width of the distribution at half of its highest point divided by 2.35 are also shown as an estimate of the $m_{\gamma \gamma }$ resolution in that category. The expected number of background events per GeV around 125 GeV is also listed. 
Summary 
We report the observation of the Higgs boson decaying in the diphoton channel and the measurement of some of its properties. The analysis uses the 2016 dataset so far collected by the CMS experiment in protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV. The analysis follows closely the strategy adopted for the Run 1 result [9]. The selected events are divided into classes loosely targeting the different Higgs production processes, in order to increase the overall sensitivity of the analysis. A separate analysis making a measurement of the fiducial crosssection of the Higgs boson is also reported. A clear signal is observed in the diphoton channel. The significance of the observation at the Run 1 best fit mass of $m_{\mathrm{H}} =$ 125.09 GeV is 5. $\sigma$ where 6.2$ \sigma$ was expected for the SM Higgs boson, and the bestfit signal strength fixing $m_{\mathrm{H}} =$ 125.09 GeV is reported to be 0.91 $\pm$ 0.20 = 0.91 $\pm$ 0.17 (stat) $^{+0.09}_{0.07}$ (syst) $^{+0.08}_{0.05}$ (theo). The bestfit values for the signal strength modifiers associated with the ggH and ttH production mechanisms, and with the VBF and VH mechanisms are found to be $\mu_{ggH,t\bar{t}H} =$ 0.80 $^{+0.14}_{0.18}$ and $\mu_{VBF,VH}=$ 1.59 $^{+0.73}_{0.45}$ respectively when $m_{\mathrm{H}}$ is profiled in the fit. The highest significance of 6.1$ \sigma$ was observed at $m_{\mathrm{H}} =$ 126.0 GeV, where 6.2$ \sigma$ was expected. The bestfit value of the fiducial cross section of the Higgs boson is found to be $\hat{\sigma}_{fid} =$ 69 $^{+18}_{22}$ fb = 69 $^{+16}_{22}$ (stat) $^{+8} _{6}$ (syst) fb, where the standard model theoretical prediction is 73.8 $\pm$ 3.8 fb. All the results are compatible with the expectations from a standard model Higgs boson. 
References  
1  S. L. Glashow  Partialsymmetries of weak interactions  Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961) 579  
2  S. Weinberg  A model of leptons  PRL 19 (1967) 1264  
3  A. Salam  Weak and electromagnetic interactions  in Elementary particle physics: relativistic groups and analyticity, N. Svartholm, ed., p. 367 Almquvist \& Wiskell, 1968 Proceedings of the eighth Nobel symposium  
4  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PLB716 (2012) 129  1207.7214 
5  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC  PLB716 (2012) 3061  CMSHIG12028 1207.7235 
6  F. Englert and R. Brout  Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons  PRL 13 (1964) 321  
7  P. W. Higgs  Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons  PRL 13 (1964) 508  
8  G. Guralnik, C. Hagen, and T. Kibble  Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles  Phys.Rev.Lett. 13 (1964) 585  
9  CMS Collaboration  Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties  EPJC74 (2014), no. 10  CMSHIG13001 1407.0558 
10  ATLAS, CMS Collaboration  Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in $ pp $ Collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=7 $ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments  PRL 114 (2015) 191803  1503.07589 
11  CMS Collaboration  First results on Higgs to gammagamma at 13 TeV  CMSPASHIG15005  CMSPASHIG15005 
12  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  CMS00001 
13  CMS Collaboration  Performance of Photon Reconstruction and Identification with the CMS Detector in ProtonProton Collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV  JINST 10 (2015), no. 08, P08010  CMSEGM14001 1502.02702 
14  J. Alwall et al.  The automated computation of treelevel and nexttoleading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations  JHEP 07 (2014) 079  1405.0301 
15  T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands  A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1  CPC 178 (2008) 852867  0710.3820 
16  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
17  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 

18  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Higgs Properties  technical report  
19  T. Gleisberg et al.  Event generation with SHERPA 1.1  JHEP 02 (2009) 007  0811.4622 
20  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit  NIMA 506 (2003) 250  
21  CMS Collaboration  ParticleFlow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and MET  CDS  
22  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  
23  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet User Manual  EPJC72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
24  CMS Collaboration  Determination of Jet Energy Calibration and Transverse Momentum Resolution in CMS  JINST 06 (2011) P11002  
25  M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam  Pileup subtraction using jet areas  PLB659 (2008) 119  
26  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt {s} = 7 $ TeV with the CMS experiment  JHEP 2011 (2011) 1  
27  CMS Collaboration  Electron and Photon performance using data collected by CMS at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV and 25ns  CDS  
28  CMS Collaboration  Identification of bquark jets with the CMS experiment  JINST 8 (2013) P04013  CMSBTV12001 1211.4462 
29  D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld  Probing color singlet exchange in $ Z $ + two jet events at the CERN LHC  PRD54 (1996) 66806689  hepph/9605444 
30  G. Cowan et al.  Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics  EPJC 71 (2011) 1  1007.1727 
31  P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies  Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method  JINST 10 (2015), no. 04, P04015  1408.6865 
32  J. Butterworth et al.  PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II  JPG43 (2016) 023001  1510.03865 
33  F. Demartin et al.  The impact of PDF and alphas uncertainties on Higgs Production in gluon fusion at hadron colliders  PRD82 (2010) 014002  1004.0962 
34  S. Carrazza et al.  An Unbiased Hessian Representation for Monte Carlo PDFs  EPJC75 (2015), no. 8, 369  1505.06736 
35  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of the differential cross section for $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production in the dilepton final state at $ \sqrt{s}=13 $~TeV  Technical Report CMSPASTOP15010, CERN, 2015. Geneva, Dec  
36  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties  1307.1347 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 