Processing math: 100%
CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-HIG-14-009 ; CERN-PH-EP-2014-288
Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV
Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 212
Abstract: Properties of the Higgs boson with mass near 125 GeV are measured in proton-proton collisions with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Comprehensive sets of production and decay measurements are combined. The decay channels include γγ, ZZ, WW, ττ, bb, and μμ pairs. The data samples were collected in 2011 and 2012 and correspond to integrated luminosities of up to 5.1 fb1 at 7 TeV and up to 19.7 fb1 at 8 TeV. From the high-resolution γγ and ZZ channels, the mass of the Higgs boson is determined to be mH = 125.02 +0.260.27 (stat) +0.140.15 (syst) GeV. For this mass value, the event yields obtained in the different analyses tagging specific decay channels and production mechanisms are consistent with those expected for the standard model Higgs boson. The combined best-fit signal relative to the standard model expectation is 1.00 ± 0.09(stat) +0.080.07 (theo) ± 0.07(syst) at the measured mass. The couplings of the Higgs boson are probed for deviations in magnitude from the standard model predictions in multiple ways, including searches for invisible and undetected decays. No significant deviations are found.

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Robert Brout and Gerald Guralnik, whose seminal contributions helped elucidate the mechanism for spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry.
Figures & Tables Summary CMS Publications
Cover

png ; pdf
Cover of European Physics Journal C, volume 75, number 5, May 2015.
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The 68% CL confidence regions for the signal strength σ/σSM versus the mass of the boson mH for the Hγγ and HZZ4 final states, and their combination. The symbol σ/σSM denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. In this combination, the relative signal strength for the two decay modes is set to the expectation for the SM Higgs boson.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
(a) Scan of the test statistic q(mH)=2ΔlnL versus the mass of the boson mH for the Hγγ and HZZ4 final states separately and for their combination. Three independent signal strengths, (ggH,ttH)γγ, (VBF,VH)γγ, and ppHZZ4, are profiled together with all other nuisance parameters. (b) Scan of the test statistic q(mγγHm4H) versus the difference between two individual mass measurements for the same model of signal strengths used in the left panel.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
(a) Scan of the test statistic q(mH)=2ΔlnL versus the mass of the boson mH for the Hγγ and HZZ4 final states separately and for their combination. Three independent signal strengths, (ggH,ttH)γγ, (VBF,VH)γγ, and ppHZZ4, are profiled together with all other nuisance parameters. (b) Scan of the test statistic q(mγγHm4H) versus the difference between two individual mass measurements for the same model of signal strengths used in the left panel.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Likelihood scan as a function of the width of the boson. The continuous (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) results for the Hγγ analysis, the HZZ4 analysis, and their combination. The data are consistent with ΓSM 4 MeV and for the combination of the two channels the observed (expected) upper limit on the width at the 95% CL is 1.7 (2.3 ) GeV.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Values of the best-fit σ/σSM for the overall combined analysis (solid vertical line) and separate combinations grouped by production mode tag, predominant decay mode, or both. The σ/σSM ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σSM uncertainty. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the best-fit σ/σSM values for the individual combinations; these bars include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. (a) Combinations grouped by analysis tags targeting individual production mechanisms; the excess in the ttH-tagged combination is largely driven by the ttH-tagged Hγγ and HWW channels as can be seen in the bottom panel. (b) Combinations grouped by predominant decay mode. (c) Combinations grouped by predominant decay mode and additional tags targeting a particular production mechanism.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Values of the best-fit σ/σSM for the overall combined analysis (solid vertical line) and separate combinations grouped by production mode tag, predominant decay mode, or both. The σ/σSM ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σSM uncertainty. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the best-fit σ/σSM values for the individual combinations; these bars include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. (a) Combinations grouped by analysis tags targeting individual production mechanisms; the excess in the ttH-tagged combination is largely driven by the ttH-tagged Hγγ and HWW channels as can be seen in the bottom panel. (b) Combinations grouped by predominant decay mode. (c) Combinations grouped by predominant decay mode and additional tags targeting a particular production mechanism.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Values of the best-fit σ/σSM for the overall combined analysis (solid vertical line) and separate combinations grouped by production mode tag, predominant decay mode, or both. The σ/σSM ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σSM uncertainty. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the best-fit σ/σSM values for the individual combinations; these bars include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. (a) Combinations grouped by analysis tags targeting individual production mechanisms; the excess in the ttH-tagged combination is largely driven by the ttH-tagged Hγγ and HWW channels as can be seen in the bottom panel. (b) Combinations grouped by predominant decay mode. (c) Combinations grouped by predominant decay mode and additional tags targeting a particular production mechanism.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
(a) The 68% CL confidence regions (bounded by the solid curves) for the signal strength of the ggH and ttH and of the VBF and VH production mechanisms, μggH,ttH and μVBF,VH, respectively. The crosses indicate the best-fit values obtained in each group of predominant decay modes: γγ, ZZ, WW, ττ, and bb. The diamond at (1,1) indicates the expected values for the SM Higgs boson. (b) Likelihood scan versus the ratio μVBF,VH/μggH,ttH, combined for all channels. The fit for μVBF,VH/μggH,ttH is performed while profiling the five μggH,ttH parameters, one per visible decay mode, as shown in Table 4. The solid curve represents the observed result in data while the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. Crossings with the horizontal thick and thin lines denote the 68% CL and 95% CL confidence intervals, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
(a) The 68% CL confidence regions (bounded by the solid curves) for the signal strength of the ggH and ttH and of the VBF and VH production mechanisms, μggH,ttH and μVBF,VH, respectively. The crosses indicate the best-fit values obtained in each group of predominant decay modes: γγ, ZZ, WW, ττ, and bb. The diamond at (1,1) indicates the expected values for the SM Higgs boson. (b) Likelihood scan versus the ratio μVBF,VH/μggH,ttH, combined for all channels. The fit for μVBF,VH/μggH,ttH is performed while profiling the five μggH,ttH parameters, one per visible decay mode, as shown in Table 4. The solid curve represents the observed result in data while the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. Crossings with the horizontal thick and thin lines denote the 68% CL and 95% CL confidence intervals, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Likelihood scan results for μggH,μVBF, μVH, and μttH. The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals. When scanning each individual parameter, the three other parameters are profiled. The SM values of the relative branching fractions are assumed for the different decay modes.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Distribution of the profile likelihood ratio qλ between different assumptions for the structure of the matrix of signal strengths for the production processes and decay modes both for pseudo-data samples generated under the SM hypothesis and the value observed in data. The likelihood in the numerator is that for the data under a model of a general rank 1 matrix, expected if the observations are due to a single particle and of which the SM is a particular case. The likelihood in the denominator is that for the data under a ``saturated model'' with as many parameters as there are matrix elements. The arrow represents the observed value in data, qobsλ. Under the SM hypothesis, the probability to find a value of qλqobsλ is (7.9 ± 0.3)%, where the uncertainty reflects only the finite number of pseudo-data samples generated.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Likelihood scans versus λWZ, the ratio of the coupling scaling factors to W and Z bosons: (left) from untagged ppHWW and ppHZZ searches, assuming the SM couplings to fermions, κf=1; (right) from the combination of all channels, profiling the coupling to fermions. The solid curve represents the observation in data. The dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. Crossings with the horizontal thick and thin lines denote the 68% CL and 95% CL confidence intervals, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Likelihood scans versus λWZ, the ratio of the coupling scaling factors to W and Z bosons: (left) from untagged ppHWW and ppHZZ searches, assuming the SM couplings to fermions, κf=1; (right) from the combination of all channels, profiling the coupling to fermions. The solid curve represents the observation in data. The dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. Crossings with the horizontal thick and thin lines denote the 68% CL and 95% CL confidence intervals, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Results of 2D likelihood scans for the κV and κf parameters. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond shows the SM point (κV,κf)=(1,1). The left plot shows the likelihood scan in two quadrants, (+,+) and (+,). The right plot shows the likelihood scan constrained to the (+,+) quadrant.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Results of 2D likelihood scans for the κV and κf parameters. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond shows the SM point (κV,κf)=(1,1). The left plot shows the likelihood scan in two quadrants, (+,+) and (+,). The right plot shows the likelihood scan constrained to the (+,+) quadrant.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
The 68% CL confidence regions for individual channels (coloured swaths) and for the overall combination (thick curve) for the κV and κf parameters. The cross indicates the global best-fit values. The dashed contour bounds the 95% CL confidence region for the combination. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (κV,κf)=(1,1). The left plot shows the likelihood scan in two quadrants (+,+) and (+,), the right plot shows the positive quadrant only.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
The 68% CL confidence regions for individual channels (coloured swaths) and for the overall combination (thick curve) for the κV and κf parameters. The cross indicates the global best-fit values. The dashed contour bounds the 95% CL confidence region for the combination. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (κV,κf)=(1,1). The left plot shows the likelihood scan in two quadrants (+,+) and (+,), the right plot shows the positive quadrant only.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
(a) Likelihood scan versus ratio of couplings to down/up fermions, λdu, with the two other free coupling modifiers, κVandκu, profiled together with all other nuisance parameters. (b) Likelihood scan versus ratio of couplings to leptons and quarks, λq, with the two other free coupling modifiers, κV and κq, profiled together with all other nuisance parameters.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
(a) Likelihood scan versus ratio of couplings to down/up fermions, λdu, with the two other free coupling modifiers, κVandκu, profiled together with all other nuisance parameters. (b) Likelihood scan versus ratio of couplings to leptons and quarks, λq, with the two other free coupling modifiers, κV and κq, profiled together with all other nuisance parameters.

png pdf
Figure 12-a:
(a) Results of likelihood scans for a model where the gluon and photon loop-induced interactions with the Higgs boson are resolved in terms of the couplings of other SM particles. The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals. When performing the scan for one parameter, the other parameters in the model are profiled. (b) The 2D likelihood scan for the M and ϵ parameters of the model detailed in the text. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (M,ϵ)=(v,0), where v is the SM Higgs vacuum expectation value, v= 246.22 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 12-b:
(a) Results of likelihood scans for a model where the gluon and photon loop-induced interactions with the Higgs boson are resolved in terms of the couplings of other SM particles. The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals. When performing the scan for one parameter, the other parameters in the model are profiled. (b) The 2D likelihood scan for the M and ϵ parameters of the model detailed in the text. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (M,ϵ)=(v,0), where v is the SM Higgs vacuum expectation value, v= 246.22 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Graphical representation of the results obtained for the models considered in Fig.12. The dashed line corresponds to the SM expectation. The points from the fit in Fig.12-a are placed at particle mass values chosen as explained in the text. The ordinates are different for fermions and massive vector bosons to take into account the expected SM scaling of the coupling with mass, depending on the type of particle. The result of the (M,ϵ) fit from Fig.12-b is shown as the continuous line while the inner and outer bands represent the 68% and 95% CL confidence regions.

png pdf
Figure 14:
The 2D likelihood scan for the κg and κγ parameters, assuming that ΓBSM=0. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (κγ,κg)=(1,1). The partial widths associated with the tree-level production processes and decay modes are assumed to be unaltered (κ=1).

png pdf
Figure 15-a:
(a) The likelihood scan versus BRBSM=ΓBSM/Γtot. The solid curve represents the observation and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. The partial widths associated with the tree-level production processes and decay modes are assumed to be as expected in the SM. (b) Result when also combining with data from the H(inv) searches, thus assuming that BRBSM=BRinv, i.e. that there are no undetected decays, BRundet = 0. (c) Result when further assuming that κg=κγ = 1 and combining with the data from the H(inv) searches.

png pdf
Figure 15-b:
(a) The likelihood scan versus BRBSM=ΓBSM/Γtot. The solid curve represents the observation and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. The partial widths associated with the tree-level production processes and decay modes are assumed to be as expected in the SM. (b) Result when also combining with data from the H(inv) searches, thus assuming that BRBSM=BRinv, i.e. that there are no undetected decays, BRundet = 0. (c) Result when further assuming that κg=κγ = 1 and combining with the data from the H(inv) searches.

png pdf
Figure 15-c:
(a) The likelihood scan versus BRBSM=ΓBSM/Γtot. The solid curve represents the observation and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. The partial widths associated with the tree-level production processes and decay modes are assumed to be as expected in the SM. (b) Result when also combining with data from the H(inv) searches, thus assuming that BRBSM=BRinv, i.e. that there are no undetected decays, BRundet = 0. (c) Result when further assuming that κg=κγ = 1 and combining with the data from the H(inv) searches.

png pdf
Figure 16:
Likelihood scans for parameters in a model with coupling scaling factors for the SM particles, one coupling at a time while profiling the remaining five together with all other nuisance parameters; from top to bottom: κV (W and Z bosons), κb (bottom quarks), κτ (tau leptons), κt (top quarks), κg (gluons; effective coupling), and κγ (photons; effective coupling). The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals.

png pdf
Figure 17:
Likelihood scans for parameters in a model without assumptions on the total width and with six coupling modifier ratios, one parameter at a time while profiling the remaining six together with all other nuisance parameters; from top to bottom: κgZ (=κgκZ/κH), λWZ (=κW/κZ), λZg (=κZ/κg), λbZ (=κb/κZ), λγZ (=κγ/κZ), λτZ (=κτ/κZ), and λtg (=κt/κg). The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals.

png pdf
Figure 18-a:
(a) Likelihood scan versus BRBSM=ΓBSM/Γtot. The solid curve represents the observation in data and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. The modifiers for both the tree-level and loop-induced couplings are profiled, but the couplings to the electroweak bosons are assumed to be bounded by the SM expectation (κV1). (b) Result when also combining with data from the H(inv) searches, thus assuming that BRBSM=BRinv, i.e. BRundet=0.

png pdf
Figure 18-b:
(a) Likelihood scan versus BRBSM=ΓBSM/Γtot. The solid curve represents the observation in data and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. The modifiers for both the tree-level and loop-induced couplings are profiled, but the couplings to the electroweak bosons are assumed to be bounded by the SM expectation (κV1). (b) Result when also combining with data from the H(inv) searches, thus assuming that BRBSM=BRinv, i.e. BRundet=0.

png pdf
Figure 19-a:
(a) The 2D likelihood scan for the BRinv and BRundet parameters for a combined analysis of the H(inv) search data and visible decay channels. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (BRinv,BRundet)=(0,0). (b) The likelihood scan versus BRundet. The solid curve represents the observation in data and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. BRinv is constrained by the data from the H(inv) searches and modifiers for both the tree-level and loop-induced couplings are profiled, but the couplings to the electroweak bosons are assumed to be bounded by the SM expectation (κV1).

png pdf
Figure 19-b:
(a) The 2D likelihood scan for the BRinv and BRundet parameters for a combined analysis of the H(inv) search data and visible decay channels. The cross indicates the best-fit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (BRinv,BRundet)=(0,0). (b) The likelihood scan versus BRundet. The solid curve represents the observation in data and the dashed curve indicates the expected median result in the presence of the SM Higgs boson. BRinv is constrained by the data from the H(inv) searches and modifiers for both the tree-level and loop-induced couplings are profiled, but the couplings to the electroweak bosons are assumed to be bounded by the SM expectation (κV1).

png pdf
Figure 20:
Summary plot of likelihood scan results for the different parameters of interest in benchmark models from Ref. separated by dotted lines. The BRBSM value at the bottom is obtained for the model with three parameters (κg,κγ,BRBSM). The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Summary of the channels in the analyses included in this combination. The first and second columns indicate which decay mode and production mechanism is targeted by an analysis. Notes on the expected composition of the signal are given in the third column. Where available, the fourth column specifies the expected relative mass resolution for the SM Higgs boson. Finally, the last columns provide the number of event categories and the integrated luminosity for the 7 and 8 TeV data sets. The notation is explained in the text.

png pdf
Table 2:
The observed and median expected significances of the excesses for each decay mode group, assuming mH= 125.0 GeV. The channels are grouped by decay mode tag as described in the text; when there is a difference in the channels included with respect to the published results for the individual channels, the result for the grouping used in those publications is also given.

png pdf
Table 3:
Parameterization used to scale the expected SM Higgs boson yields from the different production modes when obtaining the results presented in Table 5 and Fig.5(a). The signal strength modifiers μggH,ttH and μVBF,VH, common to all decay modes, are associated with the ggH and ttH and with the VBF and VH production mechanisms, respectively.

png pdf
Table 4:
Parameterization used to scale the expected SM Higgs boson yields for the different production processes and decay modes when obtaining the μVBF,VH/μggH,ttH results presented in Table 5 and Fig.5(b).

png pdf
Table 5:
The best-fit values for the signal strength of the VBF and VH and of the ggH and ttH production mechanisms, μVBF,VH and μggH,ttH, respectively, for mH= 125.0 GeV. The channels are grouped by decay mode tag as described in the text. The observed and median expected results for the ratio of μVBF,VH to μggH,ttH together with their uncertainties are also given for the full combination. In the full combination, μVBF,VH/μggH,ttH is determined while profiling the five μggH,ttH parameters, one per decay mode, as shown in Table 4.

png pdf
Table 6:
Parameterization used to scale the expected SM Higgs boson yields of the different production and decay modes when obtaining the results presented in Fig.6.

png pdf
Table 7:
The best-fit results for independent signal strengths scaling the ggH, VBF, VH, and ttH production processes; the expected and observed significances with respect to the background-only hypothesis, μi=0; and the pull of the observation with respect to the SM hypothesis, μi=1. The best-fit results are also provided separately for the 7 TeV and 8 TeV data sets, for which the predicted cross sections differ. These results assume that the relative values of the branching fractions are those predicted for the SM Higgs boson.

png pdf
Table 8:
Parameterization used to scale the expected SM Higgs boson yields of the different production and decay modes when obtaining the results presented in Table 9. The μggH,ttH and μVBF,VH parameters are introduced to reduce the dependency of the results on the SM expectation.

png pdf
Table 9:
The best-fit results and 68\%CL confidence intervals for signal strength ratios of the decay mode in each column and the decay mode in each row, as modelled by the parameterization in Table 8. When the likelihood of the data is scanned as a function of each individual parameter, the three other parameters in the same row, as well the production cross sections modifiers μggH,ttH and μVBF,VH, are profiled. Since each row corresponds to an independent fit to data, the relation λyy,xx=1/λxx,yy is only approximately satisfied.

png pdf
Table 10:
A completely general signal parameterization used to scale the expected yields of the 5×4 different production and decay modes. The particular choice of parameters is such that the single-particle parameterization shown in Table 11 is a nested model, i.e. it can be obtained by assuming λji=λi, where i runs through the production processes except ggH and j runs through the decay modes. The expectation for the SM Higgs boson is λji=μj=1. This parameterization is used in the denominator of the test statistic defined in Eq.6.

png pdf
Table 11:
A general single-state parameterization used to scale the expected yields of the different production and decay modes. For this parameterization the matrix has rank(M)= 1 by definition. It can be seen that this parameterization is nested in the general one presented in Table 10, and can be obtained by setting λji=λi, where i runs through the production processes except ggH and j runs through the decay modes. The expectation for the SM Higgs boson is λi=μj=1. This parameterization is used in the numerator of the test statistic defined in Eq.6.

png pdf
Table 12:
Tests of the compatibility of the data with the SM Higgs boson couplings. The best-fit values and 68% and 95%CL confidence intervals are given for the evaluated scaling factors κi or ratios λij=κi/κj. The different compatibility tests discussed in the text are separated by horizontal lines. When one of the parameters in a group is evaluated, others are treated as nuisance parameters.
Summary
Properties of the Higgs boson with mass near 125 GeV are measured in proton-proton collisions with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Comprehensive sets of production and decay measurements are combined. The decay channels include γγ, ZZ, WW, ττ, bb, and μμ pairs. The data samples were collected in 2011 and 2012 and correspond to integrated luminosities of up to 5.1 fb1 at 7 TeV and up to 19.7 fb1 at 8 TeV. From the high-resolution γγ and ZZ channels, the mass of the Higgs boson is determined to be 125.02 +0.260.27 (stat) +0.140.15 (syst) GeV. For this mass value, the event yields obtained in the different analyses tagging specific decay channels and production mechanisms are consistent with those expected for the standard model Higgs boson. The combined best-fit signal relative to the standard model expectation is 1.00 ± 0.09 (stat) +0.080.07 (theo) ± 0.07 (syst) at the measured mass. The couplings of the Higgs boson are probed for deviations in magnitude from the standard model predictions in multiple ways, including searches for invisible and undetected decays. No significant deviations are found.
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN