CMSHIG19016 ; CERNEP2022142  
Measurement of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
25 August 2022  
JHEP 07 (2023) 091  
Abstract: The measurements of the inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections of the Higgs boson decaying to a pair of photons are presented. The analysis is performed using protonproton collisions data recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$ ^{1} $. The inclusive fiducial cross section is measured to be $ \sigma_{\text{fid}}=$ 73.4$_{5.3}^{+5.4} $ (stat) $ _{2.2}^{+2.4} $ (syst) fb, in agreement with the standard model expectation of 75.4 $ \pm $ 4.1 fb. The measurements are also performed in fiducial regions targeting different production modes and as function of several observables describing the diphoton system, the number of additional jets present in the event, and other kinematic observables. Two double differential measurements are performed. No significant deviations from the standard model expectations are observed.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2208.12279 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
The chained approach for the set of input variables for the quantile BDTs. The input variables for the BDT for each variable being corrected are given. The variables to be corrected are used as the target, and the quantile is learned through the learning objective given in Eq. (1). Within one group of variables ($ y_{1} $,..., $ y_{n} $), with nonnegligible correlations, an order is set. The quantile BDT for a given variable includes the prior set of variables, within this ordering, as additional inputs. For simulation (right), the additional input variables are corrected before using them as inputs for the quantile BDTs. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
The upper pane shows the distribution of the photon isolation sum ($ \mathcal{I}_{\text{ph}} $) in 2018 data (black dots) and simulation (coloured histograms). The green histogram shows the uncorrected distribution, the orange one the distribution after equalizing the number of events with zero isolation in simulation with data, and the purple one the distribution after applying the equalizing step and the CQR technique to its tail part. The arrows show the two ways events can be shifted. From peak to tail (green) and from tail to peak (yellow) with their respective probabilities $ p $ (peak to tail) and $ p $ (tail to peak). The lower pane shows the ratio of the three simulation distributions to the one from data. The distributions shown in this figure are taken from a set of events distinct from the ones used for the derivation of the correction method. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Distribution of the output of the photon identification MVA for the probe candidate in a $ \mathrm{Z} \to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ tagandprobe sample for data and the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO simulation. The electrons have been reconstructed as photons and a selection to reduce the number of misidentified electrons in data is applied. The simulated events have been reweighted with respect to $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \eta $, $ \phi $, and $ \rho $ to match data in order to remove effects from mismodelled kinematic variables. Electrons that are detected in the barrel ($ \eta < $ 1.4442) or endcap ($ \eta > $ 1.566) part of the ECAL and the corresponding distributions are shown on the left or right, respectively. The blue band shows the systematic uncertainty assigned to the data simulation mismatch of the output of the photon identification MVA. The orange histogram and points in the upper and lower plots, respectively, show the photon identification MVA distribution and its ratio to data evaluated using the uncorrected version of its input variables in simulation. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Distribution of the output of the photon identification MVA for the probe candidate in a $ \mathrm{Z} \to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ tagandprobe sample for data and the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO simulation. The electrons have been reconstructed as photons and a selection to reduce the number of misidentified electrons in data is applied. The simulated events have been reweighted with respect to $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \eta $, $ \phi $, and $ \rho $ to match data in order to remove effects from mismodelled kinematic variables. Electrons that are detected in the barrel ($ \eta < $ 1.4442) part of the ECAL and the corresponding distribution is shown. The blue band shows the systematic uncertainty assigned to the data simulation mismatch of the output of the photon identification MVA. The orange histogram and points in the upper and lower plots, respectively, show the photon identification MVA distribution and its ratio to data evaluated using the uncorrected version of its input variables in simulation. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Distribution of the output of the photon identification MVA for the probe candidate in a $ \mathrm{Z} \to \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $ tagandprobe sample for data and the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO simulation. The electrons have been reconstructed as photons and a selection to reduce the number of misidentified electrons in data is applied. The simulated events have been reweighted with respect to $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \eta $, $ \phi $, and $ \rho $ to match data in order to remove effects from mismodelled kinematic variables. Electrons that are detected in the endcap ($ \eta > $ 1.566) part of the ECAL and the corresponding distribution is shown. The blue band shows the systematic uncertainty assigned to the data simulation mismatch of the output of the photon identification MVA. The orange histogram and points in the upper and lower plots, respectively, show the photon identification MVA distribution and its ratio to data evaluated using the uncorrected version of its input variables in simulation. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
The signal model distributions used in the fiducial cross section measurement for the best and worst resolution categories in 2018. The half width of the $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $ distribution region around its peak that contains 68.3% of the total integral is denoted as $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $. The distributions shown here are taken from the signal simulation including the four dominant Higgs boson production mechanisms with a mass hypothesis of $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125 GeV. Details of the derivation of the signal model distributions are discussed in Section 8.1. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
The signal model distributions used in the fiducial cross section measurement for the best resolution category in 2018. The half width of the $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $ distribution region around its peak that contains 68.3% of the total integral is denoted as $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $. The distributions shown here are taken from the signal simulation including the four dominant Higgs boson production mechanisms with a mass hypothesis of $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125 GeV. Details of the derivation of the signal model distributions are discussed in Section 8.1. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
The signal model distributions used in the fiducial cross section measurement for the worst resolution category in 2018. The half width of the $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $ distribution region around its peak that contains 68.3% of the total integral is denoted as $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $. The distributions shown here are taken from the signal simulation including the four dominant Higgs boson production mechanisms with a mass hypothesis of $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125 GeV. Details of the derivation of the signal model distributions are discussed in Section 8.1. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
The event yields summed across all resolution categories divided by the total $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section [15] multiplied by the integrated luminosity for the bins in the particlelevel, reconstructionlevel observables for the year 2018 for the observables $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ n_{\text{jets}} $ are shown. There is one column per particlelevel bin and one row per reconstructionlevel bin. The top row shows the predicted fiducial acceptance, i.e., the per particlelevel bin $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section divided by the total $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section. The values of the matrix $ K $ in Eq. (5) can be computed by dividing, column by column, the values in each bin by the predicted fiducial acceptance reported in the top row. The version of PYTHIA used here is 8.240 and the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO version is 2.6.5. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
The event yields summed across all resolution categories divided by the total $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section [15] multiplied by the integrated luminosity for the bins in the particlelevel, reconstructionlevel observables for the year 2018 for the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ observable are shown. There is one column per particlelevel bin and one row per reconstructionlevel bin. The top row shows the predicted fiducial acceptance, i.e., the per particlelevel bin $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section divided by the total $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section. The values of the matrix $ K $ in Eq. (5) can be computed by dividing, column by column, the values in each bin by the predicted fiducial acceptance reported in the top row. The version of PYTHIA used here is 8.240 and the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO version is 2.6.5. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
The event yields summed across all resolution categories divided by the total $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section [15] multiplied by the integrated luminosity for the bins in the particlelevel, reconstructionlevel observables for the year 2018 for the $ n_{\text{jets}} $ observable are shown. There is one column per particlelevel bin and one row per reconstructionlevel bin. The top row shows the predicted fiducial acceptance, i.e., the per particlelevel bin $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section divided by the total $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section. The values of the matrix $ K $ in Eq. (5) can be computed by dividing, column by column, the values in each bin by the predicted fiducial acceptance reported in the top row. The version of PYTHIA used here is 8.240 and the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO version is 2.6.5. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
The black line shows the scan of $ q\left(\Delta\vec{\sigma}\right)=2\Delta\ln\mathrm{L} $ for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section in the fiducial region. The red line shows the theoretical prediction for the SM, obtained with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO. Its uncertainty is shown as the hatched area. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Diphoton invariant mass distribution with combining all categories used for the inclusive fiducial cross section measurement. The displayed $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $ histogram and signal+background hypothesis (red line) represent their sums across all categories weighted by their respective $ S/(S+B) $ ratio. In the lower panel, the $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $ histogram subtracting the background component, as estimated by the background pdf, is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
The $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section in dedicated regions of the fiducial phase space. Their selection criteria on top of the fiducial requirements are indicated on the plot. The prediction from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO including the NNLOPS reweighting, with its uncertainty from acceptance variation due to PDF, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $, and scale uncertainties, as well as cross section and branching fraction uncertainties, is shown. The systematic uncertainty in the measured value is shown as a blue band and the full systematic$ \oplus $statistical uncertainty is shown as the error bar, where $ \oplus $ stands for the sum in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
The correlation matrices for the cross sections $ \sigma_{\text{fid}} $ per particlelevel bin for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $ (upper), and $ n_{\text{jets}} $ (lower), as given in Table 3, extracted from the simultaneous maximum likelihood fit for the cross sections. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
The correlation matrix for the cross sections $ \sigma_{\text{fid}} $ per particlelevel bin for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $, as given in Table 3, extracted from the simultaneous maximum likelihood fit for the cross sections. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
The correlation matrix for the cross sections $ \sigma_{\text{fid}} $ per particlelevel bin for $ n_{\text{jets}} $, as given in Table 3, extracted from the simultaneous maximum likelihood fit for the cross sections. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $, $ n_{\text{jets}} $, $ y^{\gamma\gamma} $, and $ \cos\theta^{\ast} $. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO in common, which is displayed in violet without uncertainties. The red lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the NNLOPS prediction. For the blue lines no NNLOPS reweighting is applied and the green lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from POWHEG. The hatched areas show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F} $ and HX components. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ value, and the renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from Ref. [15]. The given $ p $values are calculated for the nominal SM prediction and the bottom panes show the ratio to the same prediction. If the last particlelevel bin expands to infinity is explicitly marked on the plot together with the normalization of this bin. 
png pdf 
Figure 10a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO in common, which is displayed in violet without uncertainties. The red lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the NNLOPS prediction. For the blue lines no NNLOPS reweighting is applied and the green lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from POWHEG. The hatched areas show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F} $ and HX components. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ value, and the renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from Ref. [15]. The given $ p $values are calculated for the nominal SM prediction and the bottom panes show the ratio to the same prediction. If the last particlelevel bin expands to infinity is explicitly marked on the plot together with the normalization of this bin. 
png pdf 
Figure 10b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ n_{\text{jets}} $. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO in common, which is displayed in violet without uncertainties. The red lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the NNLOPS prediction. For the blue lines no NNLOPS reweighting is applied and the green lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from POWHEG. The hatched areas show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F} $ and HX components. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ value, and the renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from Ref. [15]. The given $ p $values are calculated for the nominal SM prediction and the bottom panes show the ratio to the same prediction. If the last particlelevel bin expands to infinity is explicitly marked on the plot together with the normalization of this bin. 
png pdf 
Figure 10c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ y^{\gamma\gamma} $. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO in common, which is displayed in violet without uncertainties. The red lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the NNLOPS prediction. For the blue lines no NNLOPS reweighting is applied and the green lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from POWHEG. The hatched areas show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F} $ and HX components. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ value, and the renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from Ref. [15]. The given $ p $values are calculated for the nominal SM prediction and the bottom panes show the ratio to the same prediction. If the last particlelevel bin expands to infinity is explicitly marked on the plot together with the normalization of this bin. 
png pdf 
Figure 10d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \cos\theta^{\ast} $. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO in common, which is displayed in violet without uncertainties. The red lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the NNLOPS prediction. For the blue lines no NNLOPS reweighting is applied and the green lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from POWHEG. The hatched areas show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{F} $ and HX components. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ value, and the renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from Ref. [15]. The given $ p $values are calculated for the nominal SM prediction and the bottom panes show the ratio to the same prediction. If the last particlelevel bin expands to infinity is explicitly marked on the plot together with the normalization of this bin. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Differential fiducial cross section for $ \phi_{\eta}^{\ast} $, $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} $, $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}_{1}} $, and $ y^{\mathrm{j}_{1}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. The first bin in the upper right plot shows the cross section for $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} < $ 15 GeV. This is marked in the plot together with the corresponding normalization. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Differential fiducial cross section for $ \phi_{\eta}^{\ast} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. The first bin in the upper right plot shows the cross section for $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} < $ 15 GeV. This is marked in the plot together with the corresponding normalization. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Differential fiducial cross section for $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. The first bin in the upper right plot shows the cross section for $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} < $ 15 GeV. This is marked in the plot together with the corresponding normalization. 
png pdf 
Figure 11c:
Differential fiducial cross section for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}_{1}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. The first bin in the upper right plot shows the cross section for $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} < $ 15 GeV. This is marked in the plot together with the corresponding normalization. 
png pdf 
Figure 11d:
Differential fiducial cross section for $ y^{\mathrm{j}_{1}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. The first bin in the upper right plot shows the cross section for $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} < $ 15 GeV. This is marked in the plot together with the corresponding normalization. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta y_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}} $, $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, and $ y^{\mathrm{j}_{2}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta y_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 12c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}_{2}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 12d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ y^{\mathrm{j}_{2}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}_{1},\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, $ \overline{\eta}_{\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}}\eta_{\gamma\gamma} $, and $ m_{\mathrm{jj}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 13a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 13b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}_{1},\mathrm{j}_{2}} $,. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 13c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \overline{\eta}_{\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}}\eta_{\gamma\gamma} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 13d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ m_{\mathrm{jj}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, $ n_{\text{leptons}} $, $ n_{\mathrm{b}\text{jets}} $, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 14a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\eta_{\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 14b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ n_{\text{leptons}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 14c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ n_{\mathrm{b}\text{jets}} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 14d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}_{1},\mathrm{j}_{2}} $, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $ in the VBFenriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 15a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}_{2}} $ in the VBFenriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 15b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma,\mathrm{j}_{1}\mathrm{j}_{2}} $ in the VBFenriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 15c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ \Delta\phi_{\mathrm{j}_{1},\mathrm{j}_{2}} $ in the VBFenriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 15d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $ in the VBFenriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Doubledifferential fiducial cross section measured in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $ and $ n_{\text{jets}} $. The content of this plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
Doubledifferential fiducial cross section measured in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma} $ and $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} $. The content of this plot is described in the caption of Fig. 10. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Efficiencies of the photon identification MVA and $ \sigma_{m}^{\mathrm{D}} $ categories for events taken from the signal sample for all three years of data taking. The second row shows the efficiency of the photon identification MVA selection in the three $ \sigma_{m}^{\mathrm{D}} $ categories and for the full sample (Overall). The third row shows the efficiencies of the selections for the three $ \sigma_{m}^{\mathrm{D}} $ categories without the photon identification MVA selection applied. The forth row reports the effective width ($ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $) of the Higgs boson signal in each category. The four dominant Higgs boson production modes considered for this analysis are included in the sample and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125 GeV is used. Only events satisfying the fiducial selection are included. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Definition of the fiducial phase space. The labels 1, 2 refer to the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ordered leading and subleading photon in the diphoton system. The variable $ \mathcal{I}_{\text{gen}}^{\gamma} $ is defined as the sum of the energy of all stable hadrons produced in a cone of radius $ \Delta R= $ 0.3 around the photon. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Binning per observable of interest. The first block of rows of the table shows the observables measured in the baseline fiducial phase space, the second one observables involving one additional jet, and the third one involving two or more additional jets. In the fourth block observables for the VBFenriched phase space are shown. Energy, invariant mass and momentum are in GeV. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
Breakdown of the systematic uncertainties in the inclusive fiducial crosssection measurament. The impacts on the measured inclusive fiducial $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section by varying the nuisance parameters for the dominating sources of systematic uncertainties by one standard deviation are given. The distinct contributions for systematic uncertainties that were split by category or year of data taking are added in quadrature for simplicity. Theoretical uncertainties summarizes the theoretical systematic uncertainties given above. 
Summary 
The measurement of the fiducial inclusive Higgs boson (H) production cross section with the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ decay mode has been presented. The fiducial phase space is defined by the ratio of the transverse momentum ($ p_{\mathrm{T}} $) of the leading (subleading) photon to diphoton invariant mass satisfying $ p_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\gamma\gamma} > $ 1/3 (1/4), their pseudorapidity being within $ \eta < $ 2.5, and both photons being isolated. The production cross section for the Higgs boson decaying into two photons in the aforementioned phase space is measured to $ \sigma_{\text{fid}}=$ 73.4$_{5.9}^{+6.1} $ fb, in agreement with the theoretical prediction from the standard model (SM) of 75.4 $ \pm $ 4.1 fb. Furthermore, the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to\mathrm{H}+\mathrm{X} $, $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ cross section in the fiducial phase space has been measured as a function of observables of the diphoton system, as well as several others involving properties of the leading$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ and subleading$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ jets. Observables corresponding to the number of jets, leptons, and btagged jets are included as well. For the first time using the CMS detector, the cross section has been measured as a function of the rapidity weighted jet$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ ($ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} $), using up to six additional jets in the event. The cross section as a function of a measure for the deviation from ``backtobackness" $ \phi_{\eta}^{\ast} $ for the diphoton system has been measured for the first time using the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ channel. Two doubledifferential cross section measurements have been performed: one in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ and the number of jets, the other in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ \tau_{\mathrm{C}}^{\mathrm{j}} $. A selected set of differential measurements has been performed in a dedicated phase space enriched with events compatible with vector boson fusion Higgs boson production. Finally, the production cross section has been measured in three fiducial phase spaces loosely targeting the vector boson and $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ associated production modes. Overall, the performed differential fiducial cross section measurements of the Higgs boson production in protonproton collisions are found to be in agreement with the SM prediction within the uncertainties. 
References  
1  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 
2  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 
3  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 
4  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  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  JHEP 08 (2016) 045  1606.02266 
5  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 
6  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 
7  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 
8  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 
9  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of fiducial differential cross sections of gluonfusion production of Higgs bosons decaying to $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^{\ast}\rightarrow\mathrm{e}\nu\mu\nu $ with the ATLAS detector at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JHEP 08 (2016) 104  1604.02997 
10  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the transverse momentum spectrum of the Higgs boson produced in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV using $ \mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ decays  JHEP 03 (2017) 032  CMSHIG15010 1606.01522 
11  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections in the $ \mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}^{\ast} \rightarrow 4\ell $ decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 10 (2017) 132  1708.02810 
12  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the fourlepton final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 11 (2017) 047  CMSHIG16041 1706.09936 
13  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 11 (2018) 185  CMSHIG16040 1804.02716 
14  ATLAS Collaboration  Combined measurement of differential and total cross sections in the $ \mathrm{H} \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ and the $ \mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}^{\ast} \rightarrow 4\ell $ decay channels at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PLB 786 (2018) 114  1805.10197 
15  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector  CERN2017002M  1610.07922 
16  ATLAS Collaboration  Higgs boson production crosssection measurements and their EFT interpretation in the 4$ \ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 80 (2020) 957  2004.03447 
17  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of WH and ZH production in the $ \mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 81 (2021) 178  2007.02873 
18  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson production crosssections in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\tau^{+}\tau^{} $ decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 08 (2022) 175  2201.08269 
19  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson production by gluongluon fusion and vectorboson fusion using $ \mathrm{H}\to \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^* \to \mathrm{e}\nu\mu\nu $ decays in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the atlas detector  Submitted to PRD, 2022  2207.00338 
20  ATLAS Collaboration  A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 52  2207.00092 
21  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ channel using 139 fb$^{1}$ of pp collision data with the ATLAS experiment  Submitted to JHEP, 2022  2207.00348 
22  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of production cross sections of the Higgs boson in the fourlepton final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  EPJC 81 (2021) 488  CMSHIG19001 2103.04956 
23  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2021) 027  CMSHIG19015 2103.06956 
24  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections in the 4$ \ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  EPJC 80 (2020) 942  2004.03969 
25  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial crosssections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  Submitted to JHEP, 2022  2202.00487 
26  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the leptonic WW decay mode at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 03 (2021) 003  CMSHIG19002 2007.01984 
27  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the decay mode to a pair of $\tau$ leptons in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRL 128 (2022) 081805  CMSHIG20015 2107.11486 
28  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 01 (2019) 183  CMSHIG17025 1807.03825 
29  CMS Collaboration  HEPData record for this analysis  link  
30  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
31  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
32  CMS Collaboration  Precision luminosity measurement in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS  EPJC 81 (2021) 800  CMSLUM17003 2104.01927 
33  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMSPASLUM17004 
CMSPASLUM17004 
34  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
35  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 01 (2011) 080  CMSEWK10002 1012.2466 
36  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
37  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 
38  K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi  NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production  JHEP 10 (2013) 222  1309.0017 
39  K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi  MINLO: Multiscale improved NLO  JHEP 10 (2012) 155  1206.3572 
40  A. Kardos, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Threejet production in POWHEG  JHEP 04 (2014) 043  1402.4001 
41  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
42  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016) 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
43  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
44  Sherpa Collaboration  Event generation with Sherpa 2.2  SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034  1905.09127 
45  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
46  CMS Collaboration  A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel  PLB 805 (2020) 135425  CMSHIG19004 2002.06398 
47  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production and the CP structure of the Yukawa interaction between the Higgs boson and top quark in the diphoton decay channel  PRL 125 (2020) 061801  CMSHIG19013 2003.10866 
48  CMS Collaboration  Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 03 (2021) 257  CMSHIG19018 2011.12373 
49  E. SpyromitrosXioufis, G. Tsoumakas, W. Groves, and I. Vlahavas  Multitarget regression via input space expansion: treating targets as inputs  Mach. Learn. 104 (2016) 55  1211.6581 
50  R. Koenker and K. F. Hallock  Quantile regression  J. Econ. Perspect. 15 (2001) 143  
51  F. Pedregosa et al.  Scikitlearn: Machine learning in Python  J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (2011) 2825  1201.0490 
52  T. Chen and C. Guestrin  XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system  in 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Know. Discov. Data Min, 2016 Proc. 2 (2016) 785 

53  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
54  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
55  E. Bols et al.  Jet flavour classification using DeepJet  JINST 15 (2020) P12012  2008.10519 
56  CMS Collaboration  Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector  JINST 14 (2019) P07004  CMSJME17001 1903.06078 
57  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P06015  CMSMUO16001 1804.04528 
58  J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper  Angular distribution of dileptons in highenergy hadron collisions  PRD 16 (1977) 2219  
59  A. Banfi et al.  Optimisation of variables for studying dilepton transverse momentum distributions at hadron colliders  EPJC 71 (2011) 1600  1009.1580 
60  M. Boggia et al.  The HiggsTools handbook: a beginners guide to decoding the Higgs sector  JPG 45 (2018) 065004  1711.09875 
61  S. Gangal, M. Stahlhofen, and F. J. Tackmann  Rapiditydependent jet vetoes  PRD 91 (2015) 054023  1412.4792 
62  D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld  Probing color singlet exchange in $ Z $ + two jet events at the CERN LHC  PRD 54 (1996) 6680  hepph/9605444 
63  P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies  Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method  JINST 10 (2015) P04015  1408.6865 
64  G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells  Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics  EPJC 71 (2011) 1554  1007.1727 
65  J. Butterworth et al.  PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II  JPG 43 (2016) 023001  1510.03865 
66  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
67  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
68  S. Carrazza et al.  An unbiased Hessian representation for Monte Carlo PDFs  EPJC 75 (2015) 369  1505.06736 
69  CMS Collaboration  Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties  EPJC 74 (2014) 3076  CMSHIG13001 1407.0558 
70  CMS Collaboration  Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMSPASJME16003 
CMSPASJME16003 
71  J. Campbell, M. Carena, R. Harnik, and Z. Liu  Interference in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\rightarrow \mathrm{h} \rightarrow \gamma\gamma $ onshell rate and the Higgs boson total width  PRL 119 (2017) 181801  1704.08259 
72  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower monte carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
73  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the \sc powheg method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
74  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the \sc powheg box  JHEP 06 (2010) 043  1002.2581 
75  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 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 