Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-HIG-19-016 | ||
| 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 with the CMS detector | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| March 2022 | ||
| Abstract: The measurements of the inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections of the Higgs boson decaying to a pair of photons are presented. The analysis is performed using proton-proton collisions collected with the CMS detector at the LHC at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The inclusive fiducial cross section is measured to be $\sigma_{\text{fid}}=$ 73.40$_{-5.3}^{+5.4}$ (stat) $_{-2.2}^{+2.4}$ (syst) fb, in agreement with the standard model expectation of 75.44 $\pm$ 4.1 fb. The measurements are also performed in fiducial regions targeting different production modes and as a function of several observables describing the diphoton system, the number of additional jets present in the events, and event-level observables. No significant deviations from the standard model expectations are observed. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to JHEP. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. |
||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
The chained approach for the set of input variables for the quantile BDTs. Within one group of variables ($y_{1}$, ..., $y_{n}$), with non-negligible correlations, an order is set. The quantile BDT for a given variable includes the prior set of variables, within this ordering, as additional inputs. For simulation (right), the additional input variables are corrected before using them as inputs for the quantile BDTs. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
The chained approach for the set of input variables for the quantile BDTs. Within one group of variables ($y_{1}$, ..., $y_{n}$), with non-negligible correlations, an order is set. The quantile BDT for a given variable includes the prior set of variables, within this ordering, as additional inputs. For simulation (right), the additional input variables are corrected before using them as inputs for the quantile BDTs. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
The chained approach for the set of input variables for the quantile BDTs. Within one group of variables ($y_{1}$, ..., $y_{n}$), with non-negligible correlations, an order is set. The quantile BDT for a given variable includes the prior set of variables, within this ordering, as additional inputs. For simulation (right), the additional input variables are corrected before using them as inputs for the quantile BDTs. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
The distribution of the photon isolation sum in data (black dots) and simulation (colored histograms). The green histogram shows the uncorrected distribution, the orange one the distribution after equalizing the number of events with zero isolation in simulation with data and the purple one the distribution after applying the equalizing step and the CQR technique to its tail part. The arrows show the two ways events can be shifted. From peak to tail (green) and from tail to peak (yellow) with their respective probabilities $p(\text {peak to tail})$ and $p(\text {tail to peak})$. The bottom plot shows the ratio of the three simulation distributions to the one from data. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Distribution of the output of the photon identification MVA for the probe candidate in a Z $\to$ ee tag-and-probe sample for data and the MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO simulation. The electrons have been reconstructed as photons and a selection to reduce the number of misidentified photons in data is applied. The simulation events have been reweighted with respect to ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$, $\eta $, $\phi $ and $\rho $ to match data in order to remove effects from mis-modelled kinematic variables. Electrons that are detected in the barrel ($ {| \eta |} < $ 1.4442) or endcap ($ {| \eta |} > $ 1.566) part of the ECAL are shown. The blue band shows the systematic uncertainty assigned to the data simulation mismatch of the output of the photon identification MVA. The purple points in the bottom plots show the ratio of the photon identification MVA distribution evaluated using the uncorrected version of its input variables from simulation to data. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Distribution of the output of the photon identification MVA for the probe candidate in a Z $\to$ ee tag-and-probe sample for data and the MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO simulation. The electrons have been reconstructed as photons and a selection to reduce the number of misidentified photons in data is applied. The simulation events have been reweighted with respect to ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$, $\eta $, $\phi $ and $\rho $ to match data in order to remove effects from mis-modelled kinematic variables. Electrons that are detected in the barrel ($ {| \eta |} < $ 1.4442) or endcap ($ {| \eta |} > $ 1.566) part of the ECAL are shown. The blue band shows the systematic uncertainty assigned to the data simulation mismatch of the output of the photon identification MVA. The purple points in the bottom plots show the ratio of the photon identification MVA distribution evaluated using the uncorrected version of its input variables from simulation to data. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Distribution of the output of the photon identification MVA for the probe candidate in a Z $\to$ ee tag-and-probe sample for data and the MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO simulation. The electrons have been reconstructed as photons and a selection to reduce the number of misidentified photons in data is applied. The simulation events have been reweighted with respect to ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$, $\eta $, $\phi $ and $\rho $ to match data in order to remove effects from mis-modelled kinematic variables. Electrons that are detected in the barrel ($ {| \eta |} < $ 1.4442) or endcap ($ {| \eta |} > $ 1.566) part of the ECAL are shown. The blue band shows the systematic uncertainty assigned to the data simulation mismatch of the output of the photon identification MVA. The purple points in the bottom plots show the ratio of the photon identification MVA distribution evaluated using the uncorrected version of its input variables from simulation to data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
The signal model pdfs used in the fiducial cross section measurement for the best and worst resolution categories in 2018. The distributions shown here are taken from the signal simulation including the four dominant Higgs boson production mechanisms with a mass hypothesis of $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV. For details on the derivation of the signal pdfs, see Section 8.1. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
The signal model pdfs used in the fiducial cross section measurement for the best and worst resolution categories in 2018. The distributions shown here are taken from the signal simulation including the four dominant Higgs boson production mechanisms with a mass hypothesis of $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV. For details on the derivation of the signal pdfs, see Section 8.1. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
The signal model pdfs used in the fiducial cross section measurement for the best and worst resolution categories in 2018. The distributions shown here are taken from the signal simulation including the four dominant Higgs boson production mechanisms with a mass hypothesis of $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV. For details on the derivation of the signal pdfs, see Section 8.1. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
The event yields divided by the total H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross-section [15] multiplied by the integrated luminosity for the bins in the particle-level, reconstruction-level observables summed across all resolution categories for the year 2018 for the observables ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and $n_{\text {jets}}$ are shown. There is one columns per particle-level bin and one row per reconstruction-level bin and resolution category. The top row shows the predicted fiducial acceptance, i.e. the per particle-level bin H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross-secton divided by the total H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross-section. The version of {pythia} used here is 8.240 and the MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO version is 2.6.5. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
The event yields divided by the total H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross-section [15] multiplied by the integrated luminosity for the bins in the particle-level, reconstruction-level observables summed across all resolution categories for the year 2018 for the observables ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and $n_{\text {jets}}$ are shown. There is one columns per particle-level bin and one row per reconstruction-level bin and resolution category. The top row shows the predicted fiducial acceptance, i.e. the per particle-level bin H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross-secton divided by the total H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross-section. The version of {pythia} used here is 8.240 and the MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO version is 2.6.5. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Scan of the cross section for the H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross section in the fiducial region. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Diphoton invariant mass histogram with all categories combined for the inclusive fiducial cross section measurement. The best fit hypotheses for the signal and background models are shown, as well as the one and two sigma bands of the background variation. The contribution from all different categories are summed with weights according the the $S/(S+B)$ ratio for the respective category. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
The H $ \to \gamma \gamma$ cross section in dedicated regions of the fiducial phase space. Their selection criteria on top of the fiducial requirements are indicated on the plot. The prediction from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO including the nnlops reweighting with its uncertainty from acceptance variation due to PDF, ${\alpha _\mathrm {S}}$ and QCD scale uncertainties as well as cross section and branching ratio uncertainties is shown. The systematic uncertainty in the measured value is shown as a blue band and the full systematic$\oplus $statistical uncertainty is shown as the error bar. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
The correlation matrices for the cross sections per particle-level bin $\mu _{i}$ for ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and $n_{jets}$, as given in Table 3, extracted from the simultaneous maximum likelihood fit for the cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
The correlation matrices for the cross sections per particle-level bin $\mu _{i}$ for ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and $n_{jets}$, as given in Table 3, extracted from the simultaneous maximum likelihood fit for the cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$, $n_{\text {jets}}$, $ {| y^{\gamma \gamma} |}$ and $\cos\theta ^{\ast}$. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO in common. The green lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the nnlops prediction. For the orange lines no nnlops reweighting is done and the purple lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from {powheg}. The hatched areas show the uncertainties on theoretical predictions. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the ${\alpha _\mathrm {S}}$ value and the QCD renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from [15]. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$, $n_{\text {jets}}$, $ {| y^{\gamma \gamma} |}$ and $\cos\theta ^{\ast}$. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO in common. The green lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the nnlops prediction. For the orange lines no nnlops reweighting is done and the purple lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from {powheg}. The hatched areas show the uncertainties on theoretical predictions. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the ${\alpha _\mathrm {S}}$ value and the QCD renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from [15]. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$, $n_{\text {jets}}$, $ {| y^{\gamma \gamma} |}$ and $\cos\theta ^{\ast}$. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO in common. The green lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the nnlops prediction. For the orange lines no nnlops reweighting is done and the purple lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from {powheg}. The hatched areas show the uncertainties on theoretical predictions. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the ${\alpha _\mathrm {S}}$ value and the QCD renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from [15]. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$, $n_{\text {jets}}$, $ {| y^{\gamma \gamma} |}$ and $\cos\theta ^{\ast}$. The observed differential fiducial cross section values are shown as black points with the vertical error bars showing the full uncertainty, the horizontal error bars show the width of the respective bin. The grey shaded areas visualize the systematic component of the uncertainty. The coloured lines denote the predictions from different setups of the event generator. All of them have the HX=VBF+VH+ttH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO in common. The green lines show the sum of HX and the ggH component from MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO reweighted to match the nnlops prediction. For the orange lines no nnlops reweighting is done and the purple lines take the prediction for the ggH production mode from {powheg}. The hatched areas show the uncertainties on theoretical predictions. Only effects coming from varying the set of PDF replicas, the ${\alpha _\mathrm {S}}$ value and the QCD renormalization and factorization scales that impact the shape are taken into account here, the total cross section is kept constant at the value from [15]. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-a:
Differential fiducial cross section for $|\phi _{\eta}^{\ast}|$, $\tau _{\text {C}}^{\text {j}}$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{1}}$and $|y^{\text {j}_{1}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-b:
Differential fiducial cross section for $|\phi _{\eta}^{\ast}|$, $\tau _{\text {C}}^{\text {j}}$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{1}}$and $|y^{\text {j}_{1}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-c:
Differential fiducial cross section for $|\phi _{\eta}^{\ast}|$, $\tau _{\text {C}}^{\text {j}}$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{1}}$and $|y^{\text {j}_{1}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-d:
Differential fiducial cross section for $|\phi _{\eta}^{\ast}|$, $\tau _{\text {C}}^{\text {j}}$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{1}}$and $|y^{\text {j}_{1}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 12-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta y_{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$ and $|y^{\text {j}_{2}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 12-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta y_{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$ and $|y^{\text {j}_{2}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 12-c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta y_{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$ and $|y^{\text {j}_{2}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 12-d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta y_{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$ and $|y^{\text {j}_{2}}|$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 13-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\bar{\eta}_{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}-\eta _{\gamma \gamma}|$ and $m^{\text {jj}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 13-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\bar{\eta}_{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}-\eta _{\gamma \gamma}|$ and $m^{\text {jj}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 13-c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\bar{\eta}_{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}-\eta _{\gamma \gamma}|$ and $m^{\text {jj}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 13-d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\bar{\eta}_{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}-\eta _{\gamma \gamma}|$ and $m^{\text {jj}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 14-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \eta _{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $n_{\text {leptons}}$, $n_{\text {bjets}}$ and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 14-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \eta _{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $n_{\text {leptons}}$, $n_{\text {bjets}}$ and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 14-c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \eta _{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $n_{\text {leptons}}$, $n_{\text {bjets}}$ and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 14-d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \eta _{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $n_{\text {leptons}}$, $n_{\text {bjets}}$ and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 14-e:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \eta _{\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $n_{\text {leptons}}$, $n_{\text {bjets}}$ and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 15-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$ in the VBF-enriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 15-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$ in the VBF-enriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 15-c:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$ in the VBF-enriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 15-d:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\text {j}_{2}}$, $|\Delta \phi _{\gamma \gamma,\text {j}_{1}\text {j}_{2}}|$, $|\Delta \phi _{\text {j}_{1},\text {j}_{2}}|$, $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$ in the VBF-enriched phase space region. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 16:
Double-differential fiducial cross section measured in bins of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$ and $n_{\text {jets}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
png pdf |
Figure 17:
Double-differential fiducial cross section measured in bins of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma \gamma}$ and $\tau _{\text {C}}^{\text {j}}$. The content of each plot is described in the caption of figure 10. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Efficiencies of the photon identification MVA and $\sigma _{m}^{D}$ boundaries for the signal sample for all three years of data taking. The second row shows the efficiency of the photon identification MVA selection in the three $\sigma _{m}^{D}$ categories and for the full sample (Overall). The third row shows the efficiencies of the selections for the three $\sigma _{m}^{D}$ categories without the photon identification MVA selection applied. The four dominant Higgs boson production modes considered for this analysis are included in the sample and $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV is used. Only events satisfying the fiducial selection are included. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Definition of the fiducial phase space. The labels 1, 2 refer to the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ -ordered leading and subleading photon in the diphoton system. $\mathcal {I}_{\text {gen}}$ is defined as the total hadronic energy in a cone of radius $\Delta R=$ 0.3 around the photon candidate. |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Binning per observable of interest. The first row of the table shows the observables measured in the baseline fidicual phase space, the second one observables involving one extra jet, and the third one involving two or more extra jets. In the fourth row observables for the VBF-enriched phase space are shown. |
| Summary |
| The measurements of the H $\to \gamma\gamma$ fiducial inclusive and differential production cross section as a function of several observables have been presented. All results are compatible with the SM prediction within uncertainties. The fiducial phase space is defined by the ratio of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ to diphoton pair mass of the leading (subleading) photon satisfying $p_{\mathrm{T}}/m_{\gamma\gamma}> $ 1/3 (1/4), their pseudorapidity being within $|\eta|< $ 2.5 and both photons being isolated. The production cross section for the Higgs boson decaying into two photons is measured in this phase space to be $\sigma_{\text{fid}}=$ 73.40$_{-5.9}^{+6.1}$ fb, to be compared with the theoretical prediction from the SM of 75.44 $\pm$ 4.1fb. The H $\to \gamma\gamma$ cross section has been measured as a functions of observables of the diphoton system, as well as several others involving properties of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-leading and subleading jets. Observables corresponding to the number of jets, leptons and b tagged jets are included as well. For the first time, the cross section has been measured as a function of $\tau_{\text{C}}^{\text{j}}$, using up to six additional jets in the event, and $|{\phi_{\eta}^{\ast}}|$ for the diphoton system. Two double-differential cross section measurements have been performed: one in bins of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and the number of jets, the other one in bins of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\tau_{\text{C}}^{\text{j}}$. The measurements with respect to selected observables have been performed in a dedicated VBF-enriched phase space. Finally, the production cross section has been measured in three fiducial phase spaces loosely targeting the VH and ttH production modes. |
| 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 | ATLAS, CMS Collaboration | Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV | JHEP 08 (2016) 045 | 1606.02266 |
| 5 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with ATLAS | JHEP 09 (2014) 112 | 1407.4222 |
| 6 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV | EPJC 76 (2016), no. 1, 13 | CMS-HIG-14-016 1508.07819 |
| 7 | 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 |
| 8 | 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 |
| 9 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of fiducial differential cross sections of gluon-fusion production of Higgs bosons decaying to $ WW^{\ast}\rightarrow $e$ \nu \mu \nu $ with the ATLAS detector at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV | JHEP 08 (2016) 104 | 1604.02997 |
| 10 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the transverse momentum spectrum of the Higgs boson produced in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV using $ H \to WW $ decays | JHEP 03 (2017) 032 | CMS-HIG-15-010 1606.01522 |
| 11 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections in the $ H \rightarrow ZZ^{\ast} \rightarrow 4\ell $ decay channel in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 10 (2017) 132 | 1708.02810 |
| 12 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 11 (2017) 047 | CMS-HIG-16-041 1706.09936 |
| 13 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 11 (2018) 185 | CMS-HIG-16-040 1804.02716 |
| 14 | ATLAS Collaboration | Combined measurement of differential and total cross sections in the $ H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ and the $ H \rightarrow ZZ^{\ast} \rightarrow 4\ell $ decay channels at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | PLB 786 (2018) 114 | 1805.10197 |
| 15 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group | Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector | CERN-2017-002-M | 1610.07922 |
| 16 | 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), no. 6, 488 | CMS-HIG-19-001 2103.04956 |
| 17 | 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 | 8 | |
| 18 | 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), no. 10, 957 | 2004.03447 |
| 19 | 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), no. 2, 178 | 2007.02873 |
| 20 | 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), no. 10, 942 | 2004.03969 |
| 21 | 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 |
| 22 | 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 s=13 TeV | PRL 128 (2022), no. 8, 081805 | CMS-HIG-20-015 2107.11486 |
| 23 | 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 | 2, 2022. Submitted to JHEP | 2202.00487 |
| 24 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 01 (2019) 183 | CMS-HIG-17-025 1807.03825 |
| 25 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017), no. 01, P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 26 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | CMS-00-001 |
| 27 | CMS Collaboration | Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS | EPJC 81 (2021), no. 9, 800 | CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927 |
| 28 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
| 29 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 | CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
| 30 | CMS Collaboration | Generic tag and probe tool for measuring efficiency at cms with early data | CMS Analysis Note 2009/111, CERN | |
| 31 | CMS Collaboration | Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 16 (2021), no. 05, P05014 | CMS-EGM-17-001 2012.06888 |
| 32 | J. Alwall et al. | The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations | JHEP 07 (2014) 079 | 1405.0301 |
| 33 | K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi | NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production | JHEP 10 (2013) 222 | 1309.0017 |
| 34 | K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi | MINLO: Multi-Scale Improved NLO | JHEP 10 (2012) 155 | 1206.3572 |
| 35 | A. Kardos, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Three-jet production in POWHEG | JHEP 04 (2014) 043 | 1402.4001 |
| 36 | T. Sjostrand et al. | An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | CPC 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 37 | CMS Collaboration | Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements | EPJC 76 (2016), no. 3, 155 | CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815 |
| 38 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | EPJC 80 (2020), no. 1, 4 | CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 39 | Sherpa Collaboration | Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2 | SciPost Phys. 7 (2019), no. 3, 034 | 1905.09127 |
| 40 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017), no. 10, P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 41 | CMS Collaboration | A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel | PLB 805 (2020) 135425 | CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398 |
| 42 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{\mathrm{s}} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2021) 027 | CMS-HIG-19-015 2103.06956 |
| 43 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}H $ Production and the CP Structure of the Yukawa Interaction between the Higgs Boson and Top Quark in the Diphoton Decay Channel | PRL 125 (2020), no. 6, 061801 | CMS-HIG-19-013 2003.10866 |
| 44 | CMS Collaboration | Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 03 (2021) 257 | CMS-HIG-19-018 2011.12373 |
| 45 | E. Spyromitros-Xioufis, G. Tsoumakas, W. Groves, and I. Vlahavas | Multi-target regression via input space expansion: treating targets as inputs | Machine Learning 104 (2016) 55 | 1211.6581 |
| 46 | R. Koenker and K. F. Hallock | Quantile regression | Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (December, 2001) 143 | |
| 47 | F. Pedregosa et al. | Scikit-learn: Machine learning in python | Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011), no. 85 | |
| 48 | T. Chen and C. Guestrin | Xgboost | Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Aug, 2016) | |
| 49 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 50 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet User Manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 51 | E. Bols et al. | Jet Flavour Classification Using DeepJet | JINST 15 (2020), no. 12, P12012 | 2008.10519 |
| 52 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector | JINST 14 (2019), no. 07, P07004 | CMS-JME-17-001 1903.06078 |
| 53 | J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper | Angular distribution of dileptons in high-energy hadron collisions | PRD 16 (Oct, 1977) 2219 | |
| 54 | M. Boggia et al. | The HiggsTools handbook: a beginners guide to decoding the Higgs sector | JPG 45 (2018), no. 6, 065004 | 1711.09875 |
| 55 | S. Gangal, M. Stahlhofen, and F. J. Tackmann | Rapidity-Dependent Jet Vetoes | PRD 91 (2015), no. 5, 054023 | 1412.4792 |
| 56 | D. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld | Probing color-singlet exchange in z+2-jet events at the cern lhc | Physical Review D 54 (Dec, 1996) 6680 | |
| 57 | P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies | Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method | JINST 10 (2015), no. 04, P04015 | 1408.6865 |
| 58 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
| 59 | J. Butterworth et al. | PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II | JPG 43 (2016) 023001 | 1510.03865 |
| 60 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017), no. 10, 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 61 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions for the LHC Run II | JHEP 04 (2015) 040 | 1410.8849 |
| 62 | S. Carrazza et al. | An Unbiased Hessian Representation for Monte Carlo PDFs | EPJC 75 (2015), no. 8, 369 | 1505.06736 |
| 63 | CMS Collaboration | Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data | CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 | CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
| 64 | J. Campbell, M. Carena, R. Harnik, and Z. Liu | Interference in the $ gg\rightarrow h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma $ On-Shell Rate and the Higgs Boson Total Width | PRL 119 (2017), no. 18, 181801 | 1704.08259 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|