CMSHIG15002 ; ATLASHIGG201507 ; CERNPH2016100  
Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV  
ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  
7 June 2016  
J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2016) 045  
Abstract: Combined ATLAS and CMS measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates, as well as constraints on its couplings to vector bosons and fermions, are presented. The combination is based on the analysis of five production processes, namely gluon fusion, vector boson fusion, and associated production with a $W$ or a $Z$ boson or a pair of top quarks, and of the six decay modes $H \to ZZ, WW$, $\gamma\gamma$, $\tau\tau$, $b\bar{b}$, and $\mu\mu$. All results are reported assuming a value of 125.09 GeV for the Higgs boson mass, the result of the combined measurement by the ATLAS and CMS experiments. The analysis uses the CERN LHC protonproton collision data recorded by the ATLAS and CMS experiments in 2011 and 2012, corresponding to integrated luminosities per experiment of approximately 5 fb$^{1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV and 20 fb$^{1}$ at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV. The Higgs boson production and decay rates measured by the two experiments are combined within the context of three generic parameterisations: two based on cross sections and branching fractions, and one on ratios of coupling modifiers. Several interpretations of the measurements with more modeldependent parameterisations are also given. The combined signal yield relative to the Standard Model prediction is measured to be 1.09 $\pm$ 0.11. The combined measurements lead to observed significances for the vector boson fusion production process and for the $Htt$ decay of 5.4 and 5.5 standard deviations, respectively. The data are consistent with the Standard Model predictions for all parameterisations considered.  
Links: eprint arXiv:1606.02266 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures & Tables  Summary  Additional Figures & Tables  References  CMS Publications 

Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ production process. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the VBF production process. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the $qq \to VH$ production process. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the ${gg\to ZH}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the ${gg\to ZH}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the ${qq \to ttH}$ and ${qq \to bbH}$ processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the ${gg \to ttH}$ and ${gg \to bbH}$ processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production via the ${gg \to ttH}$ and ${gg \to bbH}$ processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production in association with a single top quark via the ${tHq}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production in association with a single top quark via the ${tHq}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production in association with a single top quark via the ${tHW}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson production in association with a single top quark via the ${tHW}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson decays to $W$ and $Z$ bosons. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson decays to fermions. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson decays to a pair of photons. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson decays to a pair of photons. 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
Example of leadingorder Feynman diagram for Higgs boson decays to a pair of photons. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Best fit values of $\sigma _i \cdot {\mathrm {B}}^f$ for each specific channel $i \to H\to f$, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ intervals. The fit results are normalised to the SM predictions for the various parameters and the shaded bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in these predictions. Only 20 parameters are shown because some are either not measured with a meaningful precision, in the case of the $ {H\to ZZ}$ decay channel for the ${WH}$, ${ZH}$, and ${ttH}$ production processes, or not measured at all and therefore fixed to their corresponding SM predictions, in the case of the $H\to bb$ decay mode for the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ and ${\mathrm {VBF}}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Best fit values of the $\sigma (gg\to H\to ZZ)$ cross section and of ratios of cross sections and branching fractions, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with nine parameters and tabulated in Table 9 for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The values involving cross sections are given for $\sqrt {s}= $ 8 TeV, assuming the SM values for $\sigma _i(7\ \text{TeV})/\sigma _i(8\ \text{TeV} )$. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. The fit results are normalised to the SM predictions for the various parameters and the shaded bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in these predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scan of the $ {\mathrm {B}}^{bb}/ {\mathrm {B}}^{ZZ}$ parameter normalised to the corresponding SM prediction. All the other parameters of interest are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal line at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. The vertical dashed line indicates the SM prediction. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Best fit values of ratios of Higgs boson coupling modifiers, as obtained from the generic parameterisation described in the text and as tabulated in Table 10 for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. The hatched areas indicate the nonallowed regions for the parameters that are assumed to be positive without loss of generality. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for $ {\lambda }_{WZ}$ (a) and $ {\lambda }_{tg}$ (b), the two parameters of Fig. 10 that are of interest in the negative range in the generic parameterisation of ratios of Higgs boson coupling modifiers described in the text. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legend are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for $ {\lambda }_{WZ}$ (a) and $ {\lambda }_{tg}$ (b), the two parameters of Fig. 10 that are of interest in the negative range in the generic parameterisation of ratios of Higgs boson coupling modifiers described in the text. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legend are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Best fit results for the production signal strengths for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. The measurements of the global signal strength $\mu $ are also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Best fit results for the decay signal strengths for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data (the results for $\mu ^{\mu \mu }$ are reported in Table 13). Also shown are the results from each experiment. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Negative loglikelihood contours at 68% CL in the ($\mu _{ {gg\mathrm {F}}+ {ttH}}^f$, $\mu _{ {\mathrm {VBF}}+ {VH}}^f$) plane for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, as obtained from the tenparameter fit described in the text for each of the five decay channels $ {H\to ZZ}$, $H\to WW$, $ {H\to \gamma \gamma }$, $H\to \tau \tau $, and $H\to bb$. The best fit values obtained for each of the five decay channels are also shown, together with the SM expectation. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Fit results for two parameterisations allowing BSM loop couplings discussed in the text: the first one assumes that $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}\ge 0$ and that $ {\kappa }_{V} \le 1$, where $ {\kappa }_{V}$ denotes $ {\kappa }_{Z}$ or $ {\kappa }_{W}$, and the second one assumes that there are no additional BSM contributions to the Higgs boson width, i.e. $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 . The measured results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their uncertainties, as well as the individual results from each experiment. The hatched areas show the nonallowed regions for the ${\kappa _t}$ parameter, which is assumed to be positive without loss of generality. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $ {\kappa }_{V} = $ 1 or $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 , the uncertainty is not defined beyond this boundary. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scan of $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}$, shown for the combination of ATLAS and CMS when allowing additional BSM contributions to the Higgs boson width. The results are shown for the parameterisation with the assumptions that $ {\kappa }_{V}\le$ 1 and $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}} \ge$ 0 in Fig. 15. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legend are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red horizontal line at 3.84 indicates the loglikelihood variation corresponding to the 95% CL upper limit, as discussed in Section 3.2. 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
Negative loglikelihood contours at 68% and 95% CL in the ($ {\kappa _\gamma }$, $ {\kappa _g}$) plane for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and for each experiment separately, as obtained from the fit to the parameterisation constraining all the other coupling modifiers to their SM values and assuming $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 . 
png pdf 
Figure 18:
Best fit values of parameters for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data, and separately for each experiment, for the parameterisation assuming the absence of BSM particles in the loops, $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 . The hatched area indicates the nonallowed region for the parameter that is assumed to be positive without loss of generality. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $\kappa _\mu  = $ 0 , the uncertainty is not defined beyond this boundary. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 19:
Best fit values as a function of particle mass for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data in the case of the parameterisation described in the text, with parameters defined as $ {\kappa }_{F} \cdot \ m_{F}/v$ for the fermions, and as $\sqrt { {\kappa }_{V}} \cdot \ m_{V}/v$ for the weak vector bosons, where $v = $ 246 GeV is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. The dashed (blue) line indicates the predicted dependence on the particle mass in the case of the SM Higgs boson. The solid (red) line indicates the best fit result to the $ [M,\epsilon ]$ phenomenological model of Ref. [128] with the corresponding 68% and 95% CL bands. 
png pdf 
Figure 20:
Best fit values of parameters for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data, and separately for each experiment, for the parameterisation testing the up and downtype fermion coupling ratios. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. The parameter $\kappa _{uu}$ is positive definite since $ {\kappa _H}$ is always assumed to be positive. Negative values for the parameter $\lambda _{Vu}$ are excluded by more than $4\sigma $. 
png pdf 
Figure 21:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scan of the $\lambda _{du}$ parameter, probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for uptype versus downtype fermions for the combination of ATLAS and CMS. The other parameters of interest from the list in the legend are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal line at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 22:
Best fit values of parameters for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data, and separately for each experiment, for the parameterisation testing the lepton and quark coupling ratios. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. For the parameter $\lambda _{lq}$, for which there is no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. The parameter $\kappa _{qq}$ is positive definite since $ {\kappa _H}$ is always assumed to be positive. Negative values for the parameter $\lambda _{Vq}$ are excluded by more than $4\sigma $. 
png pdf 
Figure 23:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scan of the $\lambda _{lq}$ parameter, probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for leptons versus quarks for the combination of ATLAS and CMS. The other parameters of interest from the list in the legend are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal line at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 24:
Negative loglikelihood contours at 68% and 95% CL in the ($\kappa _F^f$, $\kappa _V^f$) plane for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and for the individual decay channels, as well as for their combination ($\kappa _F$ versus $\kappa _V$ shown in black), without any assumption about the sign of the coupling modifiers. The other two quadrants (not shown) are symmetric with respect to the point (0,0). 
png pdf 
Figure 25a:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for the five $\kappa _F^f$ parameters, corresponding to each individual decay channel, and for the global $\kappa _F$ parameter, corresponding to the combination of all decay channels: (a) $\kappa _{F}^{\gamma \gamma }$, (b) $\kappa _{F}^{ZZ}$, (c) $\kappa _{F}^{WW}$, (d) $\kappa _{F}^{\tau \tau }$, (e) $\kappa _{F}^{bb}$, and (f) $\kappa _F$. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legends are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 25b:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for the five $\kappa _F^f$ parameters, corresponding to each individual decay channel, and for the global $\kappa _F$ parameter, corresponding to the combination of all decay channels: (a) $\kappa _{F}^{\gamma \gamma }$, (b) $\kappa _{F}^{ZZ}$, (c) $\kappa _{F}^{WW}$, (d) $\kappa _{F}^{\tau \tau }$, (e) $\kappa _{F}^{bb}$, and (f) $\kappa _F$. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legends are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 25c:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for the five $\kappa _F^f$ parameters, corresponding to each individual decay channel, and for the global $\kappa _F$ parameter, corresponding to the combination of all decay channels: (a) $\kappa _{F}^{\gamma \gamma }$, (b) $\kappa _{F}^{ZZ}$, (c) $\kappa _{F}^{WW}$, (d) $\kappa _{F}^{\tau \tau }$, (e) $\kappa _{F}^{bb}$, and (f) $\kappa _F$. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legends are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 25d:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for the five $\kappa _F^f$ parameters, corresponding to each individual decay channel, and for the global $\kappa _F$ parameter, corresponding to the combination of all decay channels: (a) $\kappa _{F}^{\gamma \gamma }$, (b) $\kappa _{F}^{ZZ}$, (c) $\kappa _{F}^{WW}$, (d) $\kappa _{F}^{\tau \tau }$, (e) $\kappa _{F}^{bb}$, and (f) $\kappa _F$. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legends are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 25e:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for the five $\kappa _F^f$ parameters, corresponding to each individual decay channel, and for the global $\kappa _F$ parameter, corresponding to the combination of all decay channels: (a) $\kappa _{F}^{\gamma \gamma }$, (b) $\kappa _{F}^{ZZ}$, (c) $\kappa _{F}^{WW}$, (d) $\kappa _{F}^{\tau \tau }$, (e) $\kappa _{F}^{bb}$, and (f) $\kappa _F$. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legends are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 25f:
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) negative loglikelihood scans for the five $\kappa _F^f$ parameters, corresponding to each individual decay channel, and for the global $\kappa _F$ parameter, corresponding to the combination of all decay channels: (a) $\kappa _{F}^{\gamma \gamma }$, (b) $\kappa _{F}^{ZZ}$, (c) $\kappa _{F}^{WW}$, (d) $\kappa _{F}^{\tau \tau }$, (e) $\kappa _{F}^{bb}$, and (f) $\kappa _F$. All the other parameters of interest from the list in the legends are also varied in the minimisation procedure. The red (green) horizontal lines at the $2\Delta \ln\Lambda $ value of 1 (4) indicate the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 1$\sigma $ (2$\sigma $) CL interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic $\chi ^2$ distribution of the test statistic. 
png pdf 
Figure 26a:
Negative loglikelihood contours at 68% and 95% CL in the ($\kappa _F$, $\kappa _V$) plane on an enlarged scale for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and for the global fit of all channels. Also shown are the contours obtained for each experiment separately. 
png pdf 
Figure 26b:
Negative loglikelihood contours at 68% CL in the ($\kappa _F^f$, $\kappa _V^f$) plane for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and for the individual decay channels as well as for their global combination ($\kappa _F$ versus $\kappa _V$), assuming that all coupling modifiers are positive. 
png pdf 
Figure 27:
Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters described in Section 4.1.1. 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. 
png pdf 
Figure 28:
Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with nine parameters described in Section 4.1.2. 
png pdf 
Figure 29:
Correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining the ATLAS and CMS data using the generic parameterisation with seven parameters described in Section 4.2. 
png pdf 
Figure 30:
Best fit values of the $gg\to H\to WW$ cross section and of ratios of cross sections and branching fractions, as obtained from the generic parameterisation described in Section 4.1.2 and as tabulated in Table 30 for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements. Also shown are the results from each experiment. The values involving cross sections are given for $\sqrt {s}= $ 8 TeV, assuming the SM values for $\sigma _i(7\ \text{TeV})/\sigma _i(8\ \text{TeV} )$. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. In this figure, the fit results are normalised to the SM predictions for the various parameters and the shaded bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in these predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 31:
Negative loglikelihood scan for $\lambda _{bZ}$ showing the minima obtained when considering all sign combinations (solid line) and each specific one separately (dashed lines). 
png pdf 
Figure 32a:
Observed negative loglikelihood scan for $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}$, the minima obtained when considering both sign combinations (solid line) and each specific one separately (dashed lines). 
png pdf 
Figure 32b:
Expected negative loglikelihood scan for $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}$, the minima obtained when considering both sign combinations (solid line) and each specific one separately (dashed lines). 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Standard Model predictions for the Higgs boson production cross sections together with their theoretical uncertainties. The value of the Higgs boson mass is assumed to be $m_H= $ 125.09 GeV and the predictions are obtained by linear interpolation between those at 125.0 and 125.1 GeV from Ref. [32] except for the ${tH}$ cross section, which is taken from Ref. [77]. The $pp \to ZH$ cross section, calculated at NNLO in QCD, includes both the quarkinitiated, i.e. $qq \to ZH$ or $qg \to ZH$, and the $gg\to ZH$ contributions. The contribution from the $gg \to ZH$ production process, calculated only at NLO in QCD and indicated separately in brackets, is given with a theoretical uncertainty assumed to be 30%. The uncertainties in the cross sections are evaluated as the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties resulting from variations of the QCD scales, parton distribution functions, and $\alpha _{\text s}$. The uncertainty in the $tH$ cross section is calculated following the procedure of Ref. [78]. The order of the theoretical calculations for the different production processes is also indicated. In the case of $bbH$ production, the values are given for the mixture of fiveflavour (5FS) and fourflavour (4FS) schemes recommended in Ref. [73]. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Standard Model predictions for the decay branching fractions of a Higgs boson with a mass of 125.09 GeV, together with their uncertainties [32]. Included are decay modes that are either directly studied or important for the combination because of their contributions to the Higgs boson width. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Summary of the event generators used by ATLAS and CMS to model the Higgs boson production processes and decay channels at $\sqrt {s}= $ 8 TeV. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
Higgs boson production cross sections $\sigma _{i}$, partial decay widths $\Gamma ^{f}$, and total decay width (in the absence of BSM decays) parameterised as a function of the $ {\kappa }$ coupling modifiers as discussed in the text, including higherorder QCD and EW corrections to the inclusive cross sections and decay partial widths. The coefficients in the expression for $\Gamma _{H}$ do not sum exactly to unity because some contributions that are negligible or not relevant to the analyses presented in this paper are not shown. 
png pdf 
Table 5:
Overview of the decay channels analysed in this paper. The $ttH$ production process, which has contributions from all decay channels, is also shown. To show the relative importance of the various channels, the results from the combined analysis presented in this paper for $ {m_{H}} = $ 125.09 GeV (Tables 12 and 13 in Section 5.2) are reported as observed signal strengths $\mu $ with their measured uncertainties. The expected uncertainties are shown in parentheses. Also shown are the observed statistical significances, together with the expected significances in parentheses, except for the $H\to \mu \mu $ channel, which has very low sensitivity. For most decay channels, only the most sensitive analyses are quoted as references, e.g. the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ and ${\mathrm {VBF}}$ analyses for the $H\to WW$ decay channel or the ${VH}$ analysis for the $H \to bb$ decay channel. Although not exactly the same, the results are close to those from the individual publications, in which slightly different values for the Higgs boson mass were assumed and in which the signal modelling and signal uncertainties were slightly different, as discussed in the text. 
png pdf 
Table 6:
Parameters of interest in the two generic parameterisations described in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2. For both parameterisations, the $gg \to H \to ZZ$ channel is chosen as a reference, expressed through the first row in the table. All other measurements are expressed as ratios of cross sections or branching fractions in the first column and of coupling modifiers in the second column. There are fewer parameters of interest in the case of the coupling parameterisation, in which the ratios of cross sections for the ${WH}$, ${ZH}$, and ${\mathrm {VBF}}$ processes can all be expressed as functions of the two parameters, $ {\lambda }_{Zg}$ and $ {\lambda }_{WZ}$. The slightly different additional assumptions in each parameterisation are discussed in the text. 
png pdf 
Table 7:
The signal parameterisation used to express the $\sigma _i \cdot {\mathrm {B}}^f$ values for each specific channel $i \to H\to f$. The values labelled with a "$$" are not measured and are therefore fixed to the SM predictions. 
png pdf 
Table 8:
Best fit values of $\sigma _i \cdot {\mathrm {B}}^f$ for each specific channel $i \to H\to f$, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements, using the $\sqrt {s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV data. The cross sections are given for $\sqrt {s}= $ 8 TeV, assuming the SM values for $\sigma _i(7\ \text{TeV} )/\sigma _i(8\ \text{TeV} )$. The results are shown together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into statistical and systematic components. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are displayed in parentheses. The SM predictions [32] and the ratios of the results to these SM predictions are also shown. The values labelled with a "$$" are either not measured with a meaningful precision and therefore not quoted, in the case of the $ {H\to ZZ}$ decay channel for the ${WH}$, ${ZH}$, and ${ttH}$ production processes, or not measured at all and therefore fixed to their corresponding SM predictions, in the case of the $H\to bb$ decay mode for the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ and ${\mathrm {VBF}}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Table 9:
Best fit values of $\sigma (gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma _i/\sigma _{ {gg\mathrm {F}}}$, and $ {\mathrm {B}}^f/ {\mathrm {B}}^{ZZ}$, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with nine parameters for 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 $\sigma _i(7\ \text{TeV} )/\sigma _i(8\ \text{TeV} )$. The results are reported for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties and their breakdown into statistical and systematic components. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are displayed in parentheses. The SM predictions [32] are also shown with their total uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Table 10:
Best fit values of $ {\kappa }_{gZ}= {\kappa }_{g}\cdot {\kappa }_{Z} / {\kappa }_{H} $ and of the ratios of coupling modifiers, as defined in the parameterisation studied 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 statistical and systematic components. The uncertainties in $\lambda _{tg}$ and $\lambda _{WZ}$, for which a negative solution is allowed, are calculated around the overall best fit value. The combined 1$\sigma $ CL intervals are $\lambda _{tg} = [2.00,1.59] \cup [1.50,2.07]$ and $\lambda _{WZ} = [0.96,0.82] \cup [0.80,0.98]$. The expected uncertainties in the measurements are displayed in parentheses. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Table 11:
Measured global signal strength $\mu $ and its total uncertainty, together with the breakdown of the uncertainty into its four components as defined in Section 3.3. 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. 
png pdf 
Table 12:
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 displayed in parentheses. These results are obtained assuming that the Higgs boson branching fractions are the same as in the SM. 
png pdf 
Table 13:
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 displayed in parentheses. 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. 
png pdf 
Table 14:
Measured and expected significances for the observation of Higgs boson production processes and decay channels for the combination of ATLAS and CMS. Not included are the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ production process and the $ {H\to ZZ}$, $H\to WW$, and $ {H\to \gamma \gamma }$ decay channels, which have already been clearly observed. All results are obtained constraining the decay branching fractions to their SM values when considering the production processes, and constraining the production cross sections to their SM values when studying the decays. 
png pdf 
Table 15:
Results of the tenparameter 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, and of the sixparameter 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. 
png pdf 
Table 16:
The two signal parameterisations used to scale the expected yields of the $5\times 5$ combinations of production processes and decay modes. The first parameterisation corresponds to the most general case with 25 independent parameters, while the second parameterisation corresponds to that expected for a single Higgs boson state. As explained in the text for the case of the general matrix parameterisation, the two parameters ${\mu _{ {gg\mathrm {F}}}^{bb}} $ and ${\lambda _{ {\mathrm {VBF}}}^{bb}} $ are set to unity in the fits, since the current analyses are not able to constrain them. 
png pdf 
Table 17:
Fit results for two parameterisations allowing BSM loop couplings discussed in the text: the first one assumes that $ {\kappa }_{V} \le 1$, where $ {\kappa }_{V}$ denotes $ {\kappa }_{Z}$ or $ {\kappa }_{W}$, and that $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}\ge 0$, while the second one assumes 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 1$\sigma $ intervals are 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. 
png pdf 
Table 18:
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 1$\sigma $ CL intervals are 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. 
png pdf 
Table 19:
Summary of fit results for the two parameterisations probing the ratios of coupling modifiers for uptype versus downtype fermions and 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 parameters $\kappa _{uu}$ and $\kappa _{qq}$ are both positive definite since $ {\kappa _H}$ is always assumed to be positive. For the parameter $\lambda _{du}$, for which both signs are allowed, the 1$\sigma $ CL intervals are shown on a second line. For the parameter $\lambda _{lq}$, for which there is no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. Negative values for the parameters $\lambda _{Vu}$ and $\lambda _{Vq}$ are excluded by more than $4\sigma $. 
png pdf 
Table 20:
Best fit values of $\sigma (gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma _i/\sigma _{ {gg\mathrm {F}}}$, and $ {\mathrm {B}}^f/ {\mathrm {B}}^{ZZ}$ 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 $\sigma _i(7\ \text{TeV})/\sigma _i(8\ \text{TeV} )$. 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 total uncertainties in the measurements are also shown in parentheses. The SM predictions [32] are shown with their total uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Table 21:
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 $\sigma _i(7\ \text{TeV})/\sigma _i(8\ \text{TeV} )$. 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 total uncertainties in the measurements are also shown in parentheses. The SM predictions [32] are shown with their total uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Table 22:
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 combined 1$\sigma $ CL intervals are $\lambda _{tg} = [2.00,1.59] \cup [1.50,2.07]$ and $\lambda _{WZ} = [0.96,0.82] \cup [0.80,0.98]$. The expected total uncertainties in the measurements are also shown in parentheses. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
Summary 
An extensive set of combined ATLAS and CMS measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates is presented, and a number of constraints on its couplings to vector bosons and fermions are derived based on various sets of assumptions. The combination is based on the analysis of approximately 600 categories of selected events, concerning five production processes, $gg{\text{F}}$, ${\text{VBF}}$, $WH$, $ZH$, and $t\bar{t}H$, where $gg{\text{F}}$ and ${\text{VBF}}$ refer, respectively, to production through the gluon fusion and vector boson fusion processes; and six decay channels, $H \to ZZ$, $WW$, $\gamma\gamma$, $\tau\tau$, $b\bar{b}$, and $\mu\mu$. All results are reported assuming a value of 125.09 GeV for the Higgs boson mass, the result of the combined Higgs boson mass measurement by the two experiments [22]. The analysis uses the LHC protonproton collision data sets recorded by the ATLAS and CMS detectors in 2011 and 2012, corresponding to integrated luminosities per experiment of approximately 5 fb$^{1}$ at $\sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV and 20 fb$^{1}$ at $\sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. This paper presents the final Higgs boson coupling combined results from ATLAS and CMS based on the LHC Run 1 data. The combined analysis is sensitive to the couplings of the Higgs boson to the weak vector bosons and to the heavier fermions (top quarks, $b$ quarks, $\tau$ leptons, and  marginally  muons). The analysis is also sensitive to the effective couplings of the Higgs boson to the photon and the gluon. At the LHC, only products of cross sections and branching fractions are measured, so the width of the Higgs boson cannot be probed without assumptions beyond the main one used for all measurements presented here, namely that the Higgs boson production and decay kinematics are close to those predicted by the Standard Model (SM). In general, the combined analysis presented in this paper provides a significant improvement with respect to the individual combinations published by each experiment separately. The precision of the results improves in most cases by a factor of approximately $1/\sqrt 2$, as one would expect for the combination of two largely uncorrelated measurements based on similarsize data samples. A few illustrative results are summarised below. For the first time, results are shown for the most generic parameterisation of the observed event yields in terms of products of Higgs boson production cross sections times branching fractions, separately for each of 20 measurable $(\sigma_i$, $\mathrm{B}^f$) pairs of production processes and decay modes. These measurements do not rely on theoretical predictions for the inclusive cross sections and the uncertainties are mostly dominated by their statistical component. In the context of this parameterisation, one can test whether the observed yields arise from more than one Higgs boson, all with experimentally indistinguishable masses, but possibly with different coupling structures to the SM particles. The data are compatible with the hypothesis of a single Higgs boson, yielding a $p$value of 29%. Fits to the observed event yields are also performed without any assumption about the Higgs boson width in the context of two other generic parameterisations. The first parameterisation is in terms of ratios of production cross sections and branching fractions, together with the reference cross section of the process $gg \to H \to ZZ$. All results are compatible with the SM. The best relative precision, of about 30%, is achieved for the ratio of cross sections $\sigma_{ {\text{VBF}}}/\sigma_{ gg{\text{F}}}$ and for the ratios of branching fractions $\mathrm{B}^{WW}/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$ and $\mathrm{B}^{\gamma\gamma}/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$. A relative precision of around 40% is achieved for the ratio of branching fractions $\mathrm{B}^{\tau\tau}/\mathrm{B}^{ZZ}$. The second parameterisation is in terms of ratios of coupling modifiers, together with one parameter expressing the $gg \to H \to ZZ$ reference process in terms of these modifiers. The ratios of coupling modifiers are measured with precisions of approximately 1020%, where the improvement in precision in this second parameterisation arises because the signal yields are expressed as squares or products of these coupling modifiers. All measurements based on the generic parameterisations are compatible between the two experiments and with the predictions of the SM. The potential presence of physics beyond the SM (BSM) is also probed using specific parameterisations. With minimal additional assumptions, the overall branching fraction of the Higgs boson into BSM decays is determined to be less than 34% at 95% CL. This constraint applies to invisible decays into BSM particles, decays into BSM particles that are not detected as such, and modifications of the decays into SM particles that are not directly measured by the experiments. The combined signal yield relative to the SM expectation is measured to be 1.09 $\pm$ 0.07 (stat) $\pm$ 0.08 (syst), where the systematic uncertainty is dominated by the theoretical uncertainty in the inclusive cross sections. The measured (expected) significance for the direct observation of the ${\text{VBF}}$ production process is at the level of 5.4$\sigma$ (4.6$\sigma$), while that for the $H \to \tau \tau$ decay channel is at the level of 5.5$\sigma$ (5.0$\sigma$). 
Additional Figures  
png pdf 
Additional Figure 33:
Best fit values of $\sigma _i \cdot {\mathrm {B}}^f$ for each specific channel $i \to H\to f$, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ intervals. The fit results are normalised to the SM predictions for the various parameters and the shaded bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in these predictions. Only 20 parameters are shown because some of them, indicated by the hatched areas, are either not measured with a meaningful precision, in the case of the $ {H\to ZZ}$ decay mode for the ${WH}$, ${ZH}$, and ${ttH}$ production processes, or not measured at all and therefore fixed to their corresponding SM predictions, in the case of the $H\to bb$ decay mode for the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ and ${\mathrm {VBF}}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 34:
Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS prefit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters described in Section 4.1.1. 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. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 35:
Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS prefit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with nine parameters described in Section 4.1.2. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 36:
Expected correlation matrix obtained from the fit combining ATLAS and CMS prefit Asimov data sets using the generic parameterisation with seven parameters described in Section 4.2. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 37:
Fit results for two parameterisations allowing BSM loop couplings: the first one assumes that $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}\ge 0$ and that $ {\kappa }_{V} \le 1$, where $ {\kappa }_{V}$ denotes $ {\kappa }_{Z}$ or $ {\kappa }_{W}$, and the second one assumes that there are no additional BSM contributions to the Higgs boson width, i.e. $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 . The measured results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their uncertainties. The hatched area indicates the nonallowed region for the $ {\kappa }_{t}$ parameter, which is assumed to be positive without loss of generality. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $ {\kappa }_{V} = $ 1 or $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 , the uncertainty is not defined beyond this boundary. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 38:
Fit results for the parameterisation allowing BSM loop couplings and assuming that there are no additional BSM contributions to the Higgs boson width, i.e. $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 . The measured results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their uncertainties, as well as the individual results from each experiment. The hatched area indicates the nonallowed region for the $ {\kappa }_{t}$ parameter, which is assumed to be positive without loss of generality. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 39:
Fit results for the parameterisation allowing BSM loop couplings and assuming that $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}\ge 0$ and that $ {\kappa }_{V} \le 1$, where $ {\kappa }_{V}$ denotes $ {\kappa }_{Z}$ or $ {\kappa }_{W}$. The measured results for the combination of ATLAS and CMS are reported together with their uncertainties, as well as the individual results from each experiment. The hatched area indicates the nonallowed region for the $ {\kappa }_{t}$ parameter, which is assumed to be positive without loss of generality. The error bars indicate the 1$\sigma $ (thick lines) and 2$\sigma $ (thin lines) intervals. When a parameter is constrained and reaches a boundary, namely $ {\kappa }_{V} = $ 1 or $ {\mathrm {B_{BSM}}}= $ 0 , the uncertainty is not defined beyond this boundary. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 40:
Best fit values as a function of particle mass for the combination of ATLAS and CMS data in the case of the parameterisation with parameters defined as $ {\kappa }_{F} \cdot \ m_{F}/v$ for the fermions, and as $\sqrt { {\kappa }_{V}} \cdot \ m_{V}/v$ for the weak vector bosons, where $v = $ 246 GeV is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. The dashed (blue) line indicates the predicted dependence on the particle mass for the SM Higgs boson. The solid (red) line indicates the best fit result to the $ [M,\epsilon ]$ model of Ref. [128] with the corresponding 68% and 95% CL bands. The bottom panel shows the ratios of the reduced coupling modifiers to the SM predictions with their total uncertainties as a function of the particle mass. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 41:
Negative loglikelihood contours at 68% CL (solid lines) and 95% CL (dashed lines) in the ($\mu _{ {gg\mathrm {F}}+ {ttH}}^f$, $\mu _{ {\mathrm {VBF}}+ {VH}}^f$) plane for the combination of ATLAS and CMS, as obtained from the tenparameter fit described in Section 5.5 for each of the five decay modes $ {H\to ZZ}$, $H\to WW$, $ {H\to \gamma \gamma }$, $H\to \tau \tau $, and $H\to bb$. The best fit values obtained for each of the five decay modes are also shown, together with the SM expectation. The straight lower portion of the $ {H\to ZZ}$ contour at 95% CL is due to the large signaloverbackground in this channel, leading to a negative signalplusbackground probability density function for large negative signal strengths. 
Additional Tables  
png pdf 
Additional Table 23:
Best fit values of $\sigma _i \cdot {\mathrm {B}}^f$ for each specific channel $i \to H\to f$, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with 23 parameters for the combination of the ATLAS and CMS measurements, using the $\sqrt {s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV data. The 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 values labelled with a "$$" are either not measured with a meaningful precision and therefore not quoted, in the case of the $ {H\to ZZ}$ decay mode for the ${WH}$, ${ZH}$, and ${ttH}$ production processes, or not measured at all and therefore fixed to their corresponding SM predictions, in the case of the $H\to bb$ decay mode for the ${gg\mathrm {F}}$ and ${\mathrm {VBF}}$ production processes. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 24:
Best fit values of $\sigma (gg\to H\to ZZ)$, $\sigma _i/\sigma _{ {gg\mathrm {F}}}$, and $ {\mathrm {B}}^f/ {\mathrm {B}}^{ZZ}$, as obtained from the generic parameterisation with nine parameters for the combined analysis of the $\sqrt {s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV data. The cross section and the cross section ratios 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 reported for the combination of ATLAS and CMS and also separately for each experiment, together with their total uncertainties. The SM predictions [32] are also shown with their total uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 25:
Best fit values of $ {\kappa }_{gZ}= {\kappa }_{g}\cdot {\kappa }_{Z} / {\kappa }_{H} $ and of the ratios of coupling modifiers, as defined in the parameterisation studied in the context of the $ {\kappa }$framework, from the combined analysis of the $\sqrt {s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV data. 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 1$\sigma $ intervals are shown on a second line. For those parameters with no sensitivity to the sign, only the absolute values are shown. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 26:
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 from each experiment, for the combined $\sqrt {s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV data. These results are derived assuming that the Higgs boson branching fractions are the same as in the SM. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 27:
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 from each experiment, for the combined $\sqrt {s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV data. These results are derived assuming that the Higgs boson production process cross sections at $\sqrt {s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV are the same as in the SM. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 28:
Compatibility with the SM prediction of fit results as a whole under the asymptotic approximation. For each parameterisation, the unconditional best fit is compared with the conditional fit where all parameters are set to their SM values. The conversion from $2\ln\Lambda $ to the quoted $p$value is performed assuming a twosided distribution with the specified number of degrees of freedom (DOF). The quoted $p$values are partially correlated between the different parameterisations. 
References  
1  ATLAS Collaboration  The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider  JINST 3 (2008) S08003  
2  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  CMS00001 
3  S. L. Glashow  Partialsymmetries of weak interactions  NP 22 (1961) 579  
4  S. Weinberg  A model of leptons  PRL 19 (1967) 1264  
5  A. Salam  Weak and electromagnetic interactions  
6  G. 't Hooft and M. Veltman  Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields  NP B 44 (1972) 189  
7  F. Englert and R. Brout  Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons  PRL 13 (1964) 321  
8  P. W. Higgs  Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields  PL12 (1964) 132  
9  P. W. Higgs  Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons  PRL 13 (1964) 508  
10  G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble  Global conservation laws and massless particles  PRL 13 (1964) 585  
11  P. W. Higgs  Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons  PR145 (1966) 1156  
12  T. W. B. Kibble  Symmetry breaking in nonAbelian gauge theories  PR155 (1967) 1554  
13  Y. Nambu and G. JonaLasinio  Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. I  PR122 (1961) 345  
14  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PLB 716 (2012) 1  1207.7214 
15  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC  PLB 716 (2012) 30  CMSHIG12028 1207.7235 
16  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 06 (2013) 081  CMSHIG12036 1303.4571 
17  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using $ pp $ collision data at $ \sqrt{s}=7 $ and 8TeV in the ATLAS experiment  EPJC 76 (2016) 6  1507.04548 
18  CMS Collaboration  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  EPJC 75 (2015) 212  CMSHIG14009 1412.8662 
19  CMS Collaboration  Study of the Mass and SpinParity of the Higgs Boson Candidate via Its Decays to Z Boson Pairs  PRL 110 (2013) 081803  CMSHIG12041 1212.6639 
20  ATLAS Collaboration  Evidence for the spin0 nature of the Higgs boson using ATLAS data  PLB 726 (2013) 120  1307.1432 
21  CMS Collaboration  Constraints on the spinparity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV  PRD 92 (2015) 012004  CMSHIG14018 1411.3441 
22  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  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  CMSHIG14042 1503.07589 
23  ATLAS Collaboration  Constraints on the offshell Higgs boson signal strength in the highmass $ ZZ $ and $ WW $ final states with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 75 (2015) 335  1503.01060 
24  CMS Collaboration  Constraints on the Higgs boson width from offshell production and decay to $ Z $boson pairs,  PLB 736 (2014) 64  CMSHIG14002 1405.3455 
25  CMS Collaboration  Limits on the Higgs boson lifetime and width from its decay to four charged leptons  PRD 92 (2015) 072010  CMSHIG14036 1507.06656 
26  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with ATLAS  JHEP 09 (2014) 112  1407.4222 
27  ATLAS Collaboration  Fiducial and differential cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the fourlepton decay channel in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PLB 738 (2014) 234  1408.3226 
28  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = 8 $ TeV  EPJC 76 (2016) 13  CMSHIG14016 1508.07819 
29  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential and integrated fiducial cross sections for Higgs boson production in the fourlepton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=7 $ and 8 TeV  JHEP 04 (2016) 005  CMSHIG14028 1512.08377 
30  S. Dittmaier et al.  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables  1101.0593  
31  S. Dittmaier et al.  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Differential Distributions  1201.3084  
32  S. Heinemeyer et al.  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties  1307.1347  
33  H. Georgi, S. Glashow, M. Machacek, and D. V. Nanopoulos  Higgs Bosons from Two Gluon Annihilation in Proton Proton Collisions  PRL 40 (1978) 692  
34  A. Djouadi, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas  Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders: QCD corrections  PLB 264 (1991) 440  
35  S. Dawson  Radiative corrections to Higgs boson production  NP B 359 (1991) 283  
36  M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. M. Zerwas  Higgs boson production at the LHC  NP B 453 (1995) 17  arXiv:hepph/9504378 
37  R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore  Nexttonexttoleading order Higgs production at hadron colliders  PRL 88 (2002) 201801  arXiv:hepph/0201206 
38  C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov  Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD  NP B 646 (2002) 220  arXiv:hepph/0207004 
39  V. Ravindran, J. Smith, and W. L. van Neerven  NNLO corrections to the total cross section for Higgs boson production in hadron hadron collisions  NP B 665 (2003) 325  arXiv:hepph/0302135 
40  S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason  Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders  JHEP 07 (2003) 028  hepph/0306211 
41  S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm, and S. Uccirati  NLO Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders  PLB 670 (2008) 12  0809.1301 
42  C. Anastasiou, R. Boughezal, and F. Petriello  Mixed QCDelectroweak corrections to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion  JHEP 04 (2009) 003  0811.3458 
43  D. de Florian and M. Grazzini  Higgs production through gluon fusion: updated cross sections at the Tevatron and the LHC  PLB 674 (2009) 291  0901.2427 
44  D. de Florian and M. Grazzini  Higgs production at the LHC: updated cross sections at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV  PLB 718 (2012) 117  1206.4133 
45  G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini  Transversemomentum resummation and the spectrum of the Higgs boson at the LHC  NP B 737 (2006) 73  hepph/0508068 
46  D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and D. Tommasini  Transversemomentum resummation: Higgs boson production at the Tevatron and the LHC  JHEP 11 (2011) 064  1109.2109 
47  M. Grazzini and H. Sargsyan  Heavyquark mass effects in Higgs boson production at the LHC  JHEP 09 (2013) 129  1306.4581 
48  I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann  Theory Uncertainties for Higgs and Other Searches Using Jet Bins  PRD 85 (2012) 034011  1107.2117 
49  A. Banfi, P. F. Monni, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi  Higgs and Zboson production with a jet veto  PRL 109 (2012) 202001  1206.4998 
50  A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira  HDECAY: A program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension  CPC 108 (1998) 56  hepph/9704448 
51  A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber  Precise predictions for the Higgsboson decay H $ \rightarrow $ WW/ZZ $ \rightarrow $ 4 leptons  PRD 74 (2006) 013004  arXiv:hepph/0604011 
52  A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber  Radiative corrections to the semileptonic and hadronic Higgsboson decays H $ \rightarrow $ WW/ZZ $ \rightarrow $ 4 fermions  JHEP 02 (2007) 080  hepph/0611234 
53  A. Denner et al.  Standard Model HiggsBoson Branching Ratios with Uncertainties  EPJC 71 (2011) 1753  1107.5909 
54  R. Cahn and S. Dawson  Production of Very Massive Higgs Bosons  PLB 136 (1984) 196  
55  M. Ciccolini, A. Denner, and S. Dittmaier  Strong and electroweak corrections to the production of Higgs + 2 jets via weak interactions at the LHC  PRL 99 (2007) 161803  0707.0381 
56  M. Ciccolini, A. Denner, and S. Dittmaier  Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vectorboson fusion at the LHC  PRD 77 (2008) 013002  0710.4749 
57  P. Bolzoni, F. Maltoni, S.O. Moch, and M. Zaro  Higgs production via vectorboson fusion at NNLO in QCD  PRL 105 (2010) 011801  1003.4451 
58  M. Botje et al.  The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations  1101.0538  
59  H. Lai et al.  New parton distributions for collider physics  PRD 82 (2010) 074024  1007.2241 
60  A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt  Parton distributions for the LHC  EPJC 63 (2009) 189  0901.0002 
61  R. D. Ball et al.  A first unbiased global NLO determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties  NP B 838 (2010) 136  1002.4407 
62  S. Glashow, D. V. Nanopoulos, and A. Yildiz  Associated Production of Higgs Bosons and Z Particles  PRD 18 (1978) 1724  
63  O. Brein, A. Djouadi, and R. Harlander  NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgsstrahlung processes at hadron colliders  PLB 579 (2004) 149  arXiv:hepph/0307206 
64  A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. M\"uck  Electroweak corrections to Higgsstrahlung off W/Z bosons at the Tevatron and the LHC with HAWK  JHEP 03 (2012) 075  1112.5142 
65  C. Englert, M. McCullough, and M. Spannowsky  Gluoninitiated associated production boosts Higgs physics  PRD 89 (2014) 013013  1310.4828 
66  G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano  Associated ZH production at hadron colliders: the fully differential NNLO QCD calculation  PLB 740 (2015) 51  1407.4747 
67  R. Raitio and W. W. Wada  Higgs boson production at large transverse momentum in quantum chromodynamics  PRD 19 (1979) 941  
68  W. Beenakker et al.  NLO QCD corrections to t$ \bar t $H production in hadron collisions  NP B 653 (2003) 151  arXiv:hepph/0211352 
69  S. Dawson et al.  Associated Higgs production with top quarks at the Large Hadron Collider: NLO QCD corrections  PRD 68 (2003) 034022  arXiv:hepph/0305087 
70  R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore  Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at nexttonexttoleading order  PRD 68 (2003) 013001  arXiv:hepph/0304035 
71  S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, and M. Spira  Higgs radiation off bottom quarks at the Tevatron and the CERN LHC  PRD 70 (2004) 074010  hepph/0309204 
72  S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth  Exclusive Higgs boson production with bottom quarks at hadron colliders  PRD 69 (2004) 074027  hepph/0311067 
73  R. Harlander, M. Kramer, and M. Schumacher  Bottomquark associated Higgsboson production: Reconciling the four and fiveflavour scheme approach  1112.3478  
74  M. Farina et al.  Lifting degeneracies in Higgs couplings using single top production in association with a Higgs boson  JHEP 05 (2013) 022  1211.3736 
75  D. Zeppenfeld, R. Kinnunen, A. Nikitenko, and E. RichterWas  Measuring Higgs boson couplings at the CERN LHC  PRD 62 (2000) 013009  hepph/0002036 
76  M. Duhrssen et al.  Extracting Higgs boson couplings from CERN LHC data  PRD 70 (2004) 113009  hepph/0406323 
77  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for $ H \to \gamma\gamma $ produced in association with top quarks and constraints on the Yukawa coupling between the top quark and the Higgs boson using data taken at 7 TeV and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PLB 740 (2015) 222  1409.3122 
78  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 
79  P. Nason  A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
80  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
81  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG  JHEP 04 (2009) 002  0812.0578 
82  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX  JHEP 06 (2010) 043  1002.2581 
83  E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini  Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM  JHEP 02 (2012) 088  1111.2854 
84  T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands  A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1  CPC 178 (2008) 852  0710.3820 
85  T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands  PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual  JHEP 05 (2006) 026  hepph/0603175 
86  M. Bahr et al.  Herwig++ Physics and Manual  EPJC 58 (2008) 639  0803.0883 
87  G. Bevilacqua et al.  HELACNLO  CPC 184 (2013) 986  1110.1499 
88  M. V. Garzelli, A. Kardos, C. G. Papadopoulos, and Z. Trocsanyi  Standard Model Higgs boson production in association with a top antitop pair at NLO with parton showering  Europhys. Lett. 96 (2011) 11001  1108.0387 
89  F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer  MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph  JHEP 02 (2003) 027  hepph/0208156 
90  J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and G. Zanderighi  NexttoLeading order Higgs + 2 jet production via gluon fusion  JHEP 10 (2006) 028  hepph/0608194 
91  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at centerofmass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PRD 90 (2014) 112015  1408.7084 
92  CMS Collaboration  Observation of the diphoton decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson and measurement of its properties  EPJC 74 (2014) 3076  CMSHIG13001 1407.0558 
93  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the fourlepton channel in pp collisions at centerofmass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PRD 91 (2015) 012006  1408.5191 
94  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the fourlepton final state  PRD 89 (2014) 092007  CMSHIG13002 1312.5353 
95  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation and measurement of Higgs boson decays to $ WW^{\ast} $ with the ATLAS detector  PRD 92 (2015) 012006  1412.2641 
96  ATLAS Collaboration  Study of the Higgs boson decaying to WW$ {}^* $ produced in association with a weak boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  JHEP 08 (2015) 137  1506.06641 
97  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of Higgs boson production and properties in the WW decay channel with leptonic final states  JHEP 01 (2014) 096  CMSHIG13023 1312.1129 
98  ATLAS Collaboration  Evidence for the Higgsboson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 04 (2015) 117  1501.04943 
99  CMS Collaboration  Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons  JHEP 05 (2014) 104  CMSHIG13004 1401.5041 
100  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for the $ b\bar{b} $ decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson in associated $ (W/Z)H $ production with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 01 (2015) 069  1409.6212 
101  CMS Collaboration  Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with a W or a Z boson and decaying to bottom quarks  PRD 89 (2014) 012003  CMSHIG13012 1310.3687 
102  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson decay to $ \mu^{+}\mu^{} $ with the ATLAS detector  PLB 738 (2014) 68  1406.7663 
103  CMS Collaboration  Search for a standard modellike Higgs boson in the $ \mu^+\mu^ $ and $ {e^+e^} $ decay channels at the LHC  PLB 744 (2015) 184  CMSHIG13007 1410.6679 
104  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson produced in association with top quarks and decaying into $ b\bar{b} $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 75 (2015) 349  1503.05066 
105  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson with a top quark pair in multilepton final states with the ATLAS detector  PLB 749 (2015) 519  1506.05988 
106  CMS Collaboration  Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with a topquark pair in pp collisions at the LHC  JHEP 05 (2013) 145  CMSHIG12035 1303.0763 
107  CMS Collaboration  Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson with a topquark pair  JHEP 09 (2014) 087  CMSHIG13029 1408.1682 
108  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for Higgs boson decays to a photon and a Z boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PLB 732 (2014) 8  1402.3051 
109  CMS Collaboration  Search for a Higgs boson decaying into a Z and a photon in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 and 8 TeV  PLB 726 (2013) 587  CMSHIG13006 1307.5515 
110  CMS Collaboration  Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion and decaying to $ {b\bar{b}} $  PRD 92 (2015) 032008  CMSHIG14004 1506.01010 
111  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for Invisible Decays of a Higgs Boson Produced in Association with a Z Boson in ATLAS  PRL 112 (2014) 201802  1402.3244 
112  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson produced in association with a hadronically decaying vector boson in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 75 (2015) 337  1504.04324 
113  CMS Collaboration  Search for invisible decays of Higgs bosons in the vector boson fusion and associated ZH production modes  EPJC 74 (2014) 2980  CMSHIG13030 1404.1344 
114  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011  ATLPHYSPUB2011011 CERNCMSNOTE2011005 

115  W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby  The RooFit toolkit for data modeling  physics/0306116  
116  L. Moneta et al.  The RooStats Project  1009.1003  
117  K. Cranmer et al.  HistFactory: A tool for creating statistical models for use with RooFit and RooStats  
118  G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells  Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics  EPJC 71 (2011) 1554  1007.1727 
119  G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins  Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals  PRD 57 (1998) 3873  physics/9711021 
120  J. Wenninger  Energy Calibration of the LHC Beams at 4 TeV  
121  J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml  Could two NMSSM Higgs bosons be present near 125 GeV?  PRD 86 (2012) 071702  1207.1545 
122  B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and M. Toharia  HiggsRadion interpretation of the LHC data?  PLB 712 (2012) 70  1202.5017 
123  A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and Y. Jiang  TwoHiggsdoublet models and enhanced rates for a 125 GeV Higgs  JHEP 05 (2013) 72  1211.3580 
124  P. M. Ferreira, R. Santos, H. E. Haber, and J. P. Silva  Massdegenerate Higgs bosons at 125 GeV in the twoHiggsdoublet model  PRD 87 (2011) 055009  1211.3131 
125  J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml  Diagnosing Degenerate Higgs Bosons at 125 GeV  PRL 110 (2013) 051801  1208.1817 
126  Y. Grossman, Z. Surujon, and J. Zupan  How to test for mass degenerate Higgs resonances  JHEP 03 (2013) 176  1301.0328 
127  A. David, J. Heikkila, and G. Petrucciani  Searching for degenerate Higgs bosons  EPJC 75 (2015) 49  1409.6132 
128  J. Ellis and T. You  Updated global analysis of Higgs couplings  JHEP 06 (2013) 103  1303.3879 
129  T. D. Lee  A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation  PRD 8 (1973) 1226 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 