CMS-HIG-21-009

CMS-HIG-21-009 ; CERN-EP-2023-065
Measurements of inclusive and differential cross sections for the Higgs boson production and decay to four-leptons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
CMS Collaboration
12 May 2023
JHEP 08 (2023) 040
Abstract: Measurements of the inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections for the Higgs boson production in the H $\to$ ZZ $\to$ 4$\ell$ ($ \ell=$ e, $\mu $) decay channel are presented. The results are obtained from the analysis of proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The measured inclusive fiducial cross section is 2.73 $ \pm $ 0.26 fb, in agreement with the standard model expectation of 2.86 $ \pm $ 0.1 fb. Differential cross sections are measured as a function of several kinematic observables sensitive to the Higgs boson production and decay to four leptons. A set of double-differential measurements is also performed, yielding a comprehensive characterization of the four leptons final state. Constraints on the Higgs boson trilinear coupling and on the bottom and charm quark coupling modifiers are derived from its transverse momentum distribution. All results are consistent with theoretical predictions from the standard model.
Links: e-print arXiv:2305.07532 [hep-ex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ;

Figures & Tables	Summary	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Schematic representation of the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{q}\bar{\mathrm{q}}\to \mathrm{H}\to ZZ\to 4\ell $ process. The five angles depicted in blue are considered in the differential analysis, as detailed in the text.
png pdf	Figure 2: Reconstructed transverse momentum (left) and rapidity (right) of the four-lepton system. Points with error bars represent the data, solid histograms the predictions from simulation. The $ y $ axes of the top panels have been rescaled to display the number of events per bin, divided by the width of each bin. The lower panels show the ratio of the measured values to the expectations from the simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Reconstructed transverse momentum of the four-lepton system. Points with error bars represent the data, solid histograms the predictions from simulation. The $ y $ axes of the top panels have been rescaled to display the number of events per bin, divided by the width of each bin. The lower panel shows the ratio of the measured values to the expectations from the simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Reconstructed rapidity of the four-lepton system. Points with error bars represent the data, solid histograms the predictions from simulation. The $ y $ axes of the top panels have been rescaled to display the number of events per bin, divided by the width of each bin. The lower panel shows the ratio of the measured values to the expectations from the simulation.
png pdf	Figure 3: Log-likelihood scan for the measured inclusive fiducial cross section. The scan is shown with (solid line) and without (dashed line) systematic uncertainties profiled in the fit.
png pdf	Figure 4: Measured inclusive fiducial cross section for the various final states (left); and as a function of the center-of-mass energy $ \sqrt{s} $ (right). In the left panel the acceptance and theoretical uncertainties are calculated using POWHEG (blue), NNLOPS (orange), and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. In the right panel the acceptance is calculated using POWHEG at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV and HRES [127,135] at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Measured inclusive fiducial cross section for the various final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties are calculated using POWHEG (blue), NNLOPS (orange), and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Measured inclusive fiducial cross section as a function of the center-of-mass energy $ \sqrt{s} $. The acceptance is calculated using POWHEG at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV and HRES [127,135] at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV.
png pdf	Figure 5: Inclusive fiducial cross section measured for the various final states with the irreducible backgrounds normalization ZZ unconstrained in the fit (left) and the corresponding correlation matrix (right). The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using POWHEG (blue), NNLOPS (orange), and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and it is fixed to the SM prediction. The ratio of the measured cross section to the theoretical prediction obtained from each generator is shown in the central panel, while the lower panel shows the ratio between the values derived from the measured ZZ normalization and the MC prediction.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Inclusive fiducial cross section measured for the various final states with the irreducible backgrounds normalization ZZ unconstrained in the fit.The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using POWHEG (blue), NNLOPS (orange), and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and it is fixed to the SM prediction. The ratio of the measured cross section to the theoretical prediction obtained from each generator is shown in the central panel, while the lower panel shows the ratio between the values derived from the measured ZZ normalization and the MC prediction.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Correlation matrix for the measurements of the inclusive fiducial cross sections in the various final states and the normalizations of the irreducible ZZ backgrounds, which are unconstrained in the fit.
png pdf	Figure 6: Differential cross sections as functions of the transverse momentum of the Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ (left) and of the rapidity of the Higgs boson $ \|y_{\mathrm{H}}\| $ (right). The fiducial cross section in the last bin (left) is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} > $ 200 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 50 GeV. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to next-to- next-to-next-to-leading order ($ \mathrm{N^3LO} $) [34]. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: Differential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} > $ 200 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 50 GeV. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to next-to- next-to-next-to-leading order ($ \mathrm{N^3LO} $) [34]. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: Differential cross sections as a function of the rapidity of the Higgs boson $ \|y_{\mathrm{H}}\| $. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to next-to- next-to-next-to-leading order ($ \mathrm{N^3LO} $) [34]. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7: Differential cross sections as functions of the number of jets in the event (upper left) and of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading (upper right) and subleading (lower) jet. Upper right: the fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j1}} > $ 200 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 40 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than one jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j1}} $ is undefined. Lower: the fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j2}} > $ 90 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 150 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j2}} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Differential cross sections as a function of the number of jets in the event. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Differential cross sections as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading jet. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j1}} > $ 200 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 40 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than one jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j1}} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Differential cross sections as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the subleading jet. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j2}} > $ 90 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 150 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{j2}} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 8: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass $ m_\text{jj} $ (upper left), the difference in azimuthal angle $ \Delta\phi_{\text{jj}} $ (upper right) the difference in pseudorapidity $ \|\Delta\eta_\text{jj}\| $ (lower) of the dijet system. Upper Left: the fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ m_\text{jj} > $ 300 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 225 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jets, for which $ m_\text{jj} $ is undefined. Upper right: the first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ \|\Delta\phi_\text{jj}\| $ is undefined. Lower: the first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ \|\Delta\eta_\text{jj}\| $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Differential cross sections as a function of the invariant mass $ m_\text{jj} $ of the dijet system. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ m_\text{jj} > $ 300 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 225 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jets, for which $ m_\text{jj} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Differential cross sections as a function of the difference in azimuthal angle $ \Delta\phi_{\text{jj}} $ of the dijet system. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ \|\Delta\phi_\text{jj}\| $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 8-c: Differential cross sections as a function of the difference in pseudorapidity $ \|\Delta\eta_\text{jj}\| $ of the dijet system. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ \|\Delta\eta_\text{jj}\| $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 9: Upper left: differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{H}+j $ system $ m_{\mathrm{H} j} $, where j is the leading jet in the event. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ m_{\mathrm{H} j} > $ 600 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 280 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than one jet, for which $ m_{\mathrm{H} j} $ is undefined. Upper right: differential cross sections as functions of the transverse momentum of the $ \mathrm{H}+j $ system $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} j} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} j} > $ 110 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 90 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than one jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} j} $ is undefined. Lower: differential cross sections as functions of the transverse momentum of the $ \mathrm{H}+jj $ system $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} jj} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} jj} > $ 60 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 40 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} jj} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{H}+j $ system $ m_{\mathrm{H} j} $, where j is the leading jet in the event. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ m_{\mathrm{H} j} > $ 600 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 280 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than one jet, for which $ m_{\mathrm{H} j} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the transverse momentum of the $ \mathrm{H}+j $ system $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} j} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} j} > $ 110 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 90 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than one jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} j} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 9-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the transverse momentum of the $ \mathrm{H}+jj $ system $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} jj} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} jj} > $ 60 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 40 GeV. The first bin comprises all events with less than two jet, for which $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} jj} $ is undefined. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 10: Left: differential cross sections as functions of the rapidity-weighed jet veto $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} > $ 80 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 70 GeV. The first bin comprises all events in the 0-jet phase space region redefined as a function of $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $, i.e.,, events with less than one jet, for which $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $ is undefined, and events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} < $ 15 GeV. Right: differential cross sections as functions of the rapidity-weighed jet veto $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} > $ 150 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 150 GeV. The first bin comprises all events in the 0-jet phase space region redefined as a function of $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} $, i.e.,, events with less than one jet, for which $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} $ is undefined, and events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} < $ 30 GeV. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 10-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the rapidity-weighed jet veto $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} > $ 80 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 70 GeV. The first bin comprises all events in the 0-jet phase space region redefined as a function of $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $, i.e.,, events with less than one jet, for which $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $ is undefined, and events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} < $ 15 GeV. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 10-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the rapidity-weighed jet veto $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} $. The fiducial cross section in the last bin is measured for events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} > $ 150 GeV and normalized to a bin width of 150 GeV. The first bin comprises all events in the 0-jet phase space region redefined as a function of $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} $, i.e.,, events with less than one jet, for which $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} $ is undefined, and events with $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{B}}^{\text{max}} < $ 30 GeV. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 11: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the leading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{1}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 11-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the leading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{1}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 11-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the leading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{1}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 11-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the leading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{1}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 12: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the subleading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{2}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 12-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the subleading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{2}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 12-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the subleading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{2}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 12-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the invariant mass of the subleading dilepton pair $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{2}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 13: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta^* $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 13-a: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta^* $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 13-b: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta^* $ in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 13-c: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta^* $ in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 14: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{1} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 14-a: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{1} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 14-b: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{1} $ in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 14-c: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{1} $ in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 15: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{2} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 15-a: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{2} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 15-b: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{2} $ in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 15-c: Differential cross sections as functions of $ \cos \theta_\text{2} $ in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 16: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi $ angle in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 16-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi $ angle in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 16-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi $ angle in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 16-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi $ angle in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 17: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi_\text{1} $ angle in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 17-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi_\text{1} $ angle in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 17-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi_\text{1} $ angle in the same-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 17-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the $ \Phi_\text{1} $ angle in the different-flavor final states. The acceptance and theoretical uncertainties in the differential bins are calculated using the ggH predictions from the POWHEG generator (blue) normalized to $ \mathrm{N^3LO} $. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is denoted as XH and is fixed to the SM prediction. The measured cross sections are also compared with the ggH predictions from NNLOPS (orange) and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO (pink). The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 18: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0-}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 18-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0-}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 18-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0-}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 18-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0-}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 19: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0h+}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 19-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0h+}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 19-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0h+}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 19-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0h+}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The brown histograms show the distribution of the matrix element discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 1. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 20: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{CP}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 20-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{CP}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 20-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{CP}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 20-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{CP}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a3} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 21: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{int}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 21-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{int}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 21-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{int}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 21-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{int}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The green histogram shows the distribution of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenario corresponding to $ f_{a2} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 22: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\Lambda\text{1}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratio of the measured cross section and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical expectation.
png pdf	Figure 22-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\Lambda\text{1}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratio of the measured cross section and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical expectation.
png pdf	Figure 22-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\Lambda\text{1}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratio of the measured cross section and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical expectation.
png pdf	Figure 22-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\Lambda\text{1}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratio of the measured cross section and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical expectation.
png pdf	Figure 23: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}_{\Lambda\text{1}}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma, \text{dec}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ (upper) and in the same-flavor (lower left) and different-flavor (lower right) final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panels display the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 23-a: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}_{\Lambda\text{1}}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma, \text{dec}} $ in the 4$ \ell $ final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 23-b: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}_{\Lambda\text{1}}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma, \text{dec}} $ in the same-flavor final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 23-c: Differential cross sections as functions of the matrix element kinematic discriminant $ {\mathcal D}_{\Lambda\text{1}}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma, \text{dec}} $ in the different-flavor final states. The brown and green histograms show the distributions of the discriminant for the HVV anomalous coupling scenarios corresponding to $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 1 and $ f_{\Lambda 1}^{\mathrm{Z}\gamma} = $ 0.5. The subdominant component of the signal (VBF+VH+ttH) is fixed to the SM prediction. The hatched areas correspond to the systematic uncertainties in the theoretical predictions. Black points represent the measured fiducial cross sections in each bin, black error bars the total uncertainty in each measurement, red boxes the systematic uncertainties. The lower panel displays the ratios of the measured cross sections and of the predictions from POWHEG and MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO to the NNLOPS theoretical predictions.
png pdf	Figure 24: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ \|y_{\mathrm{H}}\| $ vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ (upper left), number of associated jets vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ (upper right), and $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $ vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ (lower). The binnings of the various measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 24-a: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ \|y_{\mathrm{H}}\| $ vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $. The binnings of the measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of the plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 24-b: Double differential cross sections in bins of number of associated jets vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $. The binnings of the measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of the plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 24-c: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ \mathcal{T}_{\text{C}}^{\text{max}} $ vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $. The binnings of the measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of the plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 25: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} \text{j}} $ vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{1}} $ vs. $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{2}} $ (upper right), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading vs. subleading jet (lower). The binnings of the various measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of each plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 25-a: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H} \text{j}} $ vs. $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $. The binnings of the measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of the plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 25-b: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{1}} $ vs. $ m_{\mathrm{Z}_{2}} $. The binnings of the measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of the plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 25-c: Double differential cross sections in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading vs. subleading jet. The binnings of the measurements are reported in Table 6. The content of the plot is described in the caption of Fig. 6.
png pdf	Figure 26: Likelihood scan as a function of $ \kappa_\lambda $. The scan is shown with (solid line) and without (dashed line) systematic uncertainties profiled in the fit.
png pdf	Figure 27: Simultaneous fit of $ \kappa_\mathrm{b} $ and $ \kappa_\mathrm{c} $, assuming a coupling dependence of the branching fraction (left) and treating it as an unconstrained parameter in the fit (right).
png pdf	Figure 27-a: Simultaneous fit of $ \kappa_\mathrm{b} $ and $ \kappa_\mathrm{c} $, assuming a coupling dependence of the branching fraction.
png pdf	Figure 27-b: Simultaneous fit of $ \kappa_\mathrm{b} $ and $ \kappa_\mathrm{c} $, treating the branching fraction as an unconstrained parameter in the fit.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Thresholds applied on the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading/subleading leptons in each data-taking period for the main dielectron (e/e), dimuon ($ \mu $/$ \mu $), and electron-muon (e/$ \mu $, $ \mu $/e) HLT algorithms.
png pdf	Table 2: Summary of the requirements used in the definition of the fiducial phase space for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}\to4\ell $ cross section measurements.
png pdf	Table 3: Matrix element kinematic discriminants considered in the analysis. Some discriminants have a special label to identify the targeted Higgs boson property rather than the name of the coupling. $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0-}} $ is sensitive to a CP-odd Higgs boson, $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{CP}} $ is the observable sensitive to the CP-mixing, and $ {\mathcal D}^{\text{dec}}_{\text{0h+}} $ is sensitive to heavy CP-even Higgs boson.
png pdf	Table 4: Bin boundaries for one-dimensional observables targeting the H boson production.
png pdf	Table 5: Bin boundaries for one-dimensional observables targeting the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}\to4\ell $ decay.
png pdf	Table 6: Double-differential observables with their corresponding bin boundaries.
png pdf	Table 7: Summary of the inputs to the maximum likelihood based unfolding. The fraction of signal events within the fiducial phase space (acceptance $ \mathcal{A}_{\text{fid}} $), the reconstruction efficiency ($ \epsilon $) in the fiducial phase space, and the ratio of the number of reconstructed events outside the fiducial phase space to that of the ones inside the fiducial phase space ($ f_{\text{nonfid}} $) are quoted for each production mechanism for $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125.38 GeV. The last column shows the value of $ (1+f_{\text{nonfid}})\epsilon $, which regulates the signal yield for a given fiducial cross section. All values are shown with their statistical uncertainty. The values for the ggH production mode are obtained using the POWHEG generator.
png pdf	Table 8: Summary of the experimental systematic uncertainties.
png pdf	Table 9: Measured inclusive fiducial cross section and $ \pm $ 1 standard deviation uncertainties for the various final states at $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125.38 GeV. The upper row summarizes the results obtained when the irreducible background normalization is constrained to the SM expectation and theoretical uncertainty, while the lower section present the results from a fit with the ZZ normalization treated as an unconstrained parameter. The first row presents the fiducial cross section, the middle row the ZZ background normalization extracted from the fit, and the bottom row the ZZ estimation from MC. The uncertainties on $ N^{ZZ}_{MC} $ are the pre-fit uncertainties summing the statistical and systematic uncertainty.

Summary

This paper presents a comprehensive characterization of the H $\to$ ZZ $\to$ 4$\ell$ decay channel via the measurement of fiducial differential cross sections as functions of several kinematic observables. The H boson production is characterized via measurements of differential cross sections in bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\mathrm{H} $ and $ |y_\text{\mathrm{H}}| $, the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading and subleading jets and observables of the dijet system, when associated with jets. For the first time, fiducial cross sections are measured in bins of the seven kinematic observables that completely define the four-lepton decay: the invariant mass of the two Z bosons and the five angles that describe the fermions kinematical properties and the production and decay planes. Differential cross sections are also measured for the first time in bins of six matrix element kinematic discriminants sensitive to various anomalous couplings of the H boson to vector bosons. The dynamical evolution of the renormalization and factorization scales, and resummation effects are probed by measuring cross sections in bins of rapidity-weighted jet vetoes, and in bins of observables of the H plus jets system. An extensive set of double-differential measurements is presented, providing a complete coverage of the phase space under study. The $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}\to4\ell $ inclusive fiducial cross section is $ \sigma_{{\text{fid}}}= $ 2.73 $ \pm $ 0.26 fb $= $ 2.73 $ \pm $ 0.22 (stat) $ \pm $ 0.15 (syst) fb, in agreement with the SM expectation of 2.86 $ \pm $ 0.15 fb. The measurement of the fiducial cross section in differential bins of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\mathrm{H} $ is used to set constraints on the trilinear self-coupling of the H boson, with an observed (expected) limit of $ -$5.4 ($-$7.6) $ < \kappa_\lambda < $ 14.9 (17.7) at the 95% CL. Finally, constraints on the modifiers of H boson couplings to b and c quarks ($ \kappa_\mathrm{b} $ and $ \kappa_\mathrm{c} $) are also determined with an observed (expected) limit of $ -$1.1 ($-$1.3) $ < \kappa_\mathrm{b} < $ 1.1 (1.2) and $ -$5.3 ($-$5.7) $ < \kappa_\mathrm{c} < $ 5.2 (5.7) at the 95% CL. All results are consistent with the SM predictions for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}\to4\ell $ decay channel in the considered fiducial phase space.

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	CMS-HIG-12-028 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	CMS-HIG-12-036 1303.4571
4	F. Englert and R. Brout	Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons	PRL 13 (1964) 321
5	P. W. Higgs	Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields	PL 12 (1964) 132
6	P. W. Higgs	Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons	PRL 13 (1964) 508
7	G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble	Global conservation laws and massless particles	PRL 13 (1964) 585
8	P. W. Higgs	Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons	PR 145 (1966) 1156
9	T. W. B. Kibble	Symmetry breaking in nonabelian gauge theories	PR 155 (1967) 1554
10	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV in the ATLAS experiment	EPJC 76 (2016) 6	1507.04548
11	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	CMS-HIG-14-009 1412.8662
12	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	1503.07589
13	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) 45	1606.02266
14	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PRD 91 (2015) 012006	1408.5191
15	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state	PRD 89 (2014) 092007	CMS-HIG-13-002 1312.5353
16	CMS Collaboration	Study of the mass and spin-parity of the Higgs boson candidate via its decays to Z boson pairs	PRL 110 (2013) 081803	CMS-HIG-12-041 1212.6639
17	CMS Collaboration	Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV	PRD 92 (2015) 012004	CMS-HIG-14-018 1411.3441
18	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV	JHEP 11 (2017) 047	CMS-HIG-16-041 1706.09936
19	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the Higgs boson coupling properties in the $ H\rightarrow ZZ^{*} \rightarrow 4\ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 03 (2018) 095	1712.02304
20	CMS Collaboration	Constraints on the Higgs boson width from off-shell production and decay to Z-boson pairs	PLB 736 (2014) 64	CMS-HIG-14-002 1405.3455
21	CMS Collaboration	Limits on the Higgs boson lifetime and width from its decay to four charged leptons	PRD 92 (2015) 072010	CMS-HIG-14-036 1507.06656
22	ATLAS Collaboration	Constraints on the off-shell Higgs boson signal strength in the high-mass ZZ and WW final states with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 75 (2015) 335	1503.01060
23	ATLAS Collaboration	Constraints on off-shell Higgs boson production and the Higgs boson total width in ZZ $\to$ 4$\ell $ and ZZ $\to$ 2$\ell$2$\nu $ final states with the ATLAS detector	PLB 786 (2018) 223	1808.01191
24	ATLAS Collaboration	Fiducial and differential cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the four-lepton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 738 (2014) 234	1408.3226
25	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of differential and integrated fiducial cross sections for Higgs boson production in the four-lepton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV	JHEP 04 (2016) 005	CMS-HIG-14-028 1512.08377
26	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections in the H $\rightarrow $ ZZ* $ \rightarrow $ 4$\ell $ decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 10 (2017) 132	1708.02810
27	ATLAS Collaboration	Higgs boson production cross-section measurements and their EFT interpretation in the 4$ \ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 80 (2020) 957	2004.0344
28	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) 941	2004.03969
29	CMS Collaboration	Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings using production and decay information in the four-lepton final state	PLB 775 (2017) 1	CMS-HIG-17-011 1707.00541
30	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of the Higgs boson width and anomalous HVV couplings from on-shell and off-shell production in the four-lepton final state	PRD 99 (2019) 112003	CMS-HIG-18-002 1901.00174
31	CMS Collaboration	Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions in its production and decay using the four-lepton final state	PRD 104 (2021) 052004	CMS-HIG-19-009 2104.12152
32	CMS Collaboration	A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel	PLB 805 (2020) 135425	CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398
33	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the Higgs boson width and evidence of its off-shell contributions to ZZ production	Nature Phys. 18 (2022) 1329	CMS-HIG-21-013 2202.06923
34	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group	Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector	technical report, 2016 link	1610.07922
35	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of production cross sections of the Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	EPJC 81 (2021) 488	CMS-HIG-19-001 2103.04956
36	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in the $ H\to\gamma\gamma $ channel using 139 fb$ ^{-1} $ of pp collision data with the ATLAS experiment	Submitted to JHEP, 2022	2207.00348
37	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	CMS-HIG-19-015 2103.06956
38	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of Higgs boson production by gluon-gluon fusion and vector-boson fusion using $ H\rightarrow W W^* \rightarrow e\nu \mu\nu $ decays in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	Submitted to Phys. Rev. D, 2022	2207.00338
39	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of the Higgs boson production cross section and couplings in the W boson pair decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C, 2022	CMS-HIG-20-013 2206.09466
40	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of WH and ZH production in the H $ \rightarrow $b\bar{b} $ decay channel in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 81 (2021) 178	2007.02873
41	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of Higgs boson production cross-sections in the $ H\to\tau^{+}\tau^{-} $ decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 08 (2022) 175	2201.08269
42	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of Higgs boson production in the decay channel with a pair of $ \tau $ leptons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV	Submitted toEur. Phys. J. C, 2022	CMS-HIG-19-010 2204.12957
43	ATLAS Collaboration	A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery	Nature Phys. 607 (2022) 52	2207.00092
44	CMS Collaboration	A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery	Nature 607 (2022) 10	CMS-HIG-22-001 2207.00043
45	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross-sections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 08 (2022) 027	2202.00487
46	CMS Collaboration	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	Submitted to JHEP, 2022	CMS-HIG-19-016 2208.12279
47	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of differential cross sections of Higgs boson production through gluon fusion in the H $\to$ WW* $\to$ e$\nu\mu\nu $ final state at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	Submitted toEur. Phys. J. C, 2023	2301.06822
48	ATLAS Collaboration	Fiducial and differential cross-section measurements for the vector-boson-fusion production of the Higgs boson in the H $ \rightarrow $ WW* $\rightarrow $ e$\nu\mu\nu $ decay channel at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	Submitted to Phys. Rev. D, 2023	2304.03053
49	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	CMS-HIG-19-002 2007.01984
50	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	CMS-HIG-20-015 2107.11486
51	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the total and differential Higgs boson production cross-sections at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector by combining the H $\rightarrow $ ZZ* $ \rightarrow $ 4$\ell $ and H $ \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ decay channels	Submitted to JHEP, 2022	2207.08615
52	CMS Collaboration	Measurement and interpretation of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	PLB 792 (2019) 369	CMS-HIG-17-028 1812.06504
53	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	JINST 15 (2020) P10017	CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165
54	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
55	CMS Collaboration	Technical proposal for the phase-II upgrade of the compact muon solenoid	CMS Technical proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015 CDS
56	CMS Collaboration	Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 16 (2021) P05014	CMS-EGM-17-001 2012.06888
57	CMS Collaboration	ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots	CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020 CDS
58	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P06015	CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528
59	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004
60	CMS Collaboration	Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS	EPJC 81 (2021) 800	CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927
61	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
62	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV	CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
63	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the Inclusive W and Z Production Cross Sections in pp Collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV	JHEP 10 (2011) 132	CMS-EWK-10-005 1107.4789
64	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
65	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
66	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
67	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
68	P. Nason and C. Oleari	NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG	JHEP 02 (2010) 037	0911.5299
69	G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano	HW$ ^{\pm} $/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO	JHEP 10 (2013) 1	1306.2542
70	H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth	Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX	PRD 91 (2015) 094003	1501.04498
71	K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi	NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production	JHEP 10 (2013) 222	1309.0017
72	Y. Gao et al.	Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders	PRD 81 (2010) 075022	1001.3396
73	S. Bolognesi et al.	On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC	PRD 86 (2012) 095031	1208.4018
74	I. Anderson et al.	Constraining anomalous HVV interactions at proton and lepton colliders	PRD 89 (2014) 035007	1309.4819
75	A. V. Gritsan, R. Röntsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao	Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques	PRD 94 (2016) 055023	1606.03107
76	A. V. Gritsan et al.	New features in the JHU generator framework: constraining Higgs boson properties from on-shell and off-shell production	PRD 102 (2020) 056022	2002.09888
77	M. Wiesemann et al.	Higgs production in association with bottom quarks	JHEP 02 (2015) 132	1409.5301
78	C. Anastasiou et al.	Higgs boson gluon-fusion production in QCD at three loops	PRL 114 (2015) 212001	1503.06056
79	C. Anastasiou et al.	High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC	JHEP 05 (2016) 58	1602.00695
80	M. Ciccolini, A. Denner, and S. Dittmaier	Strong and electroweak corrections to the production of a Higgs boson+2 jets via weak interactions at the Large Hadron Collider	PRL 99 (2007) 161803	0707.0381
81	M. Ciccolini, A. Denner, and S. Dittmaier	Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at the LHC	PRD 77 (2008) 013002	0710.4749
82	P. Bolzoni, F. Maltoni, S.-O. Moch, and M. Zaro	Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at NNLO in QCD	PRL 105 (2010) 011801	1003.4451
83	P. Bolzoni, F. Maltoni, S.-O. Moch, and M. Zaro	Vector boson fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order in QCD: Standard model Higgs boson and beyond	PRD 85 (2012) 035002	1109.3717
84	O. Brein, A. Djouadi, and R. Harlander	NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders	PLB 579 (2004) 149	hep-ph/0307206
85	M. L. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier, and M. Kr ä mer	Electroweak radiative corrections to associated WH and ZH production at hadron colliders	PRD 68 (2003) 073003	hep-ph/0306234
86	W. Beenakker et al.	Higgs radiation off top quarks at the Tevatron and the LHC	PRL 87 (2001) 201805	hep-ph/0107081
87	W. Beenakker et al.	NLO QCD corrections to $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ H production in hadron collisions.	NPB 653 (2003) 151	hep-ph/0211352
88	S. Dawson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth	Associated top quark Higgs boson production at the LHC	PRD 67 (2003) 071503	hep-ph/0211438
89	S. Dawson et al.	Associated Higgs production with top quarks at the Large Hadron Collider: NLO QCD corrections	PRD 68 (2003) 034022	hep-ph/0305087
90	Z. Yu et al.	QCD NLO and EW NLO corrections to $ t\bar{t}H $ production with top quark decays at hadron collider	PLB 738 (2014) 1	1407.1110
91	S. S. Frixione et al.	Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair	JHEP 09 (2014) 65	1407.0823
92	F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and M. Zaro	Higgs production in association with a single top quark at the LHC	EPJC 75 (2015) 267	1504.0611
93	F. Demartin et al.	tWH associated production at the LHC	EPJC 77 (2017) 34	1607.05862
94	A. Denner et al.	Standard model Higgs-boson branching ratios with uncertainties	EPJC 71 (2011) 1753	1107.5909
95	A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira	HDECAY: A program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension	Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 56	hep-ph/9704448
96	A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. Muhlleitner, and M. Spira	An update of the program HDECAY	in Les Houches workshop on TeV colliders 2009: The tools and Monte Carlo working group summary report (2010)	1003.1643
97	A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber	Precise predictions for the Higgs-boson decay H $ \rightarrow $ WW/ZZ $ \rightarrow $ 4 leptons	PRD 74 (2006) 013004	hep-ph/0604011
98	A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. M. Weber	Radiative corrections to the semileptonic and hadronic Higgs-boson decays H $ \rightarrow $ WW/ZZ $ \rightarrow $ 4 fermions	JHEP 02 (2007) 80	hep-ph/0611234
99	S. Boselli et al.	Higgs boson decay into four leptons at NLOPS electroweak accuracy	JHEP 06 (2015) 23	1503.07394
100	S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm, and S. Uccirati	NNLO computational techniques: the cases H $ \to \gamma \gamma $ and H $ \to$ gg	NPB 811 (2009) 182	0809.3667
101	T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi	W$ ^{+} $W$ ^{-} $, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX	JHEP 11 (2011) 078	1107.5051
102	J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis	MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC	Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 20 (2010) 5	1007.3492
103	J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams	Vector boson pair production at the LHC	JHEP 07 (2011) 018	1105.0020
104	J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams	Bounding the Higgs width at the LHC using full analytic results for $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\to \mathrm{e}^{-}\mathrm{e}^{+} \mu^{-} \mu^{+} $	JHEP 04 (2014) 060	1311.3589
105	J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis	Higgs constraints from vector boson fusion and scattering	JHEP 04 (2015) 030	1502.02990
106	T. Sjöstrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
107	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
108	CMS Collaboration	Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements	EPJC 80 (2020) 4	CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179
109	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
110	GEANT 4 Collaboration	GEANT 4--a simulation toolkit	NIM A 506 (2003) 250
111	GEANT 4 Collaboration, J. Allison et al.	GEANT 4 developments and applications	IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270
112	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
113	T. Chen and C. Guestrin	XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system	technical report, 2016 link	1603.02754
114	CMS Collaboration	Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data	JINST 15 (2020) P09018	CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503
115	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
116	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
117	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV	JINST 12 (2017) P02014	CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663
118	Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al.	Review of particle physics	Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022) 083C01
119	S. Gangal, M. Stahlhofen, and F. J. Tackmann	Rapidity-Dependent Jet Vetoes	PRD 91 (2015) 054023	1412.4792
120	M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev	ZZ production at the LHC: Fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD	PLB 750 (2015) 407	1507.06257
121	A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, and J. H. Kühn	Vector-boson pair production at the LHC to $ \mathcal{O}(\alpha^3) $ accuracy	JHEP 12 (2013) 071	1305.5402
122	M. Bonvini et al.	Signal-background interference effects in gg $\to$ H $\to$ WW beyond leading order	PRD 88 (2013) 034032	1304.3053
123	K. Melnikov and M. Dowling	Production of two Z-bosons in gluon fusion in the heavy top quark approximation	PLB 744 (2015) 43	1503.01274
124	C. S. Li, H. T. Li, D. Y. Shao, and J. Wang	Soft gluon resummation in the signal-background interference process of gg($ \rightarrow $ h$ ^{*} $) $ \rightarrow $ ZZ	JHEP 08 (2015) 065	1504.02388
125	G. Passarino	Higgs CAT	EPJC 74 (2014) 2866	1312.2397
126	S. Catani and M. Grazzini	An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to Higgs boson production at the LHC	PRL 98 (2007) 222002	hep-ph/0703012
127	M. Grazzini	NNLO predictions for the Higgs boson signal in the H $ \to $ WW $\to \ell\nu\ell\nu $ and H $ \to $ ZZ $\to$ 4$\ell $ decay channels	JHEP 02 (2008) 043	0801.3232
128	M. Grazzini and H. Sargsyan	Heavy-quark mass effects in Higgs boson production at the LHC	JHEP 09 (2013) 129	1306.4581
129	T. Skwarnicki	A study of the radiative CASCADE transitions between the Upsilon-Prime and Upsilon resonances	PhD thesis, Cracow, INP, 1986
130	ATLAS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, and LHC Higgs Combination Group	Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011	Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011
131	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727
132	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	CMS-HIG-14-016 1508.07819
133	J. Butterworth et al.	PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II	JPG 43 (2016) 023001	1510.03865
134	ATLAS Collaboration	Electron reconstruction and identification in the ATLAS experiment using the 2015 and 2016 LHC proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV	EPJC 79 (2019) 639	1902.04655
135	CMS Collaboration	HEPData record for this analysis	link
136	D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and D. Tommasini	Higgs boson production at the LHC: transverse momentum resummation effects in the H $\to \gamma \gamma $, H $\to$ WW \$to \ell\nu\ell\nu $ and H $\to$ ZZ $\to$ 4$\ell $ decay modes	JHEP 06 (2012) 132	1203.6321
137	G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, F. Maltoni, and D. Pagani	Probing the Higgs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC	JHEP 12 (2016) 080	1607.04251
138	F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji, and X. Zhao	Trilinear Higgs coupling determination via single-Higgs differential measurements at the LHC	EPJC 77 (2017) 887	1709.08649
139	S. Di Vita et al.	A global view on the Higgs self-coupling	JHEP 09 (2017) 069	1704.01953
140	ATLAS Collaboration	Constraining the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV	Submitted to PLB, 2022	2211.01216
141	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group	Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties	CERN Report CERN-2013-004, 2013 link	1307.1347
142	F. Bishara, U. Haisch, P. F. Monni, and E. Re	Constraining Light-Quark Yukawa Couplings from Higgs Distributions	PRL 118 (2017) 121801	1606.09253