CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-HIG-20-013
Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson in the W boson pair decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
Abstract: Production cross sections of the standard model Higgs boson decaying to a pair of W bosons are measured. The analysis targets Higgs bosons produced via gluon fusion, vector boson fusion and in association with a W or Z boson. Candidate events, in which at least one of the W bosons originating from the Higgs boson decays leptonically, are identified by selecting final states with at least two charged leptons and moderate missing transverse momentum. Results are presented in the form of inclusive and differential cross sections, as well as coupling modifiers of the Higgs boson to vector bosons and fermions. The full data set collected by the CMS detector during Run 2 of the LHC is used, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The signal strength modifier $\mu$, defined as the ratio of the observed production rate to the standard model expectation, is measured to be $\mu = $ 0.95$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 0-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > $ 20 GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < $ 20 GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 0-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > $ 20 GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < $ 20 GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 0-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > $ 20 GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < $ 20 GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 0-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > $ 20 GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < $ 20 GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 0-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > $ 20 GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < $ 20 GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 1-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > 20$ GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < 20$ GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 1-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > 20$ GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < 20$ GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 1-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > 20$ GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < 20$ GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 1-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > 20$ GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < 20$ GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (top) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (bottom) fit variables in the 1-jet ggH $p_{\mathrm {T2}} > 20$ GeV (left) and $p_{\mathrm {T2}} < 20$ GeV (right) DF categories. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (left) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (right) fit variables in the 2-jet ggH DF category. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (left) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (right) fit variables in the 2-jet ggH DF category. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ (left) and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (right) fit variables in the 2-jet ggH DF category. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 0-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 0-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 0-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 1-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 1-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 1-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 2-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 2-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 2-jet DF top quark control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 0-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 0-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 0-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 1-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 1-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 1-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 2-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 2-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Observed distributions of the ${m_{\ell \ell}}$ and ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ variables in the 2-jet DF $\text {DY}\rightarrow {\tau^{+} \tau^{-}} $ control region. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Distributions for the $C_{VBF}$ (left) and $C_{ggH}$ (right) classifiers in the \textit {VBF-like} and \textit {ggH-like} VBF DF categories, respectively. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The superimposed ggH and VBF signals are separately stacked. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Distributions for the $C_{VBF}$ (left) and $C_{ggH}$ (right) classifiers in the \textit {VBF-like} and \textit {ggH-like} VBF DF categories, respectively. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The superimposed ggH and VBF signals are separately stacked. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Distributions for the $C_{VBF}$ (left) and $C_{ggH}$ (right) classifiers in the \textit {VBF-like} and \textit {ggH-like} VBF DF categories, respectively. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The superimposed ggH and VBF signals are separately stacked. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Distribution of the $C_{VBF}$ classifier in a category defined using the VBF DF SR global selection requirements, before the further event categorization based on the classifier outputs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Observed distributions of the $\\tilde{m}_{\mathrm {H}}$ fit variable in the WHSS 1-jet e$\mu$ (top left), 2-jet e$\mu$ (top right), 1-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom left) and 2-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-a:
Observed distributions of the $\\tilde{m}_{\mathrm {H}}$ fit variable in the WHSS 1-jet e$\mu$ (top left), 2-jet e$\mu$ (top right), 1-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom left) and 2-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-b:
Observed distributions of the $\\tilde{m}_{\mathrm {H}}$ fit variable in the WHSS 1-jet e$\mu$ (top left), 2-jet e$\mu$ (top right), 1-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom left) and 2-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-c:
Observed distributions of the $\\tilde{m}_{\mathrm {H}}$ fit variable in the WHSS 1-jet e$\mu$ (top left), 2-jet e$\mu$ (top right), 1-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom left) and 2-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-d:
Observed distributions of the $\\tilde{m}_{\mathrm {H}}$ fit variable in the WHSS 1-jet e$\mu$ (top left), 2-jet e$\mu$ (top right), 1-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom left) and 2-jet $\mu\mu$ (bottom right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Observed distributions of the BDT score in the WH3$\ell$ OSSF (left) and SSSF (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
Observed distributions of the BDT score in the WH3$\ell$ OSSF (left) and SSSF (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
Observed distributions of the BDT score in the WH3$\ell$ OSSF (left) and SSSF (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14:
Observed distributions of the $ {{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}} $ fit variable in the ZH3$\ell$ 1-jet (left) and 2-jet (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-a:
Observed distributions of the $ {{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}} $ fit variable in the ZH3$\ell$ 1-jet (left) and 2-jet (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-b:
Observed distributions of the $ {{m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}} $ fit variable in the ZH3$\ell$ 1-jet (left) and 2-jet (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 15:
Observed distributions of the BTD score in the ZH4$\ell$ XDF (left) and XSF (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 15-a:
Observed distributions of the BTD score in the ZH4$\ell$ XDF (left) and XSF (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 15-b:
Observed distributions of the BTD score in the ZH4$\ell$ XDF (left) and XSF (right) SRs. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 16:
Observed distribution of the $m_{\ell \ell}$ fit variable in the VH2j DF SR. The uncertainty band corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty in the templates after the fit to data. The signal template is shown both stacked on top of the backgrounds as well as superimposed. The predicted yields are shown with their best fit normalizations from the simultaneous fit. Vertical bars on data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The overflow is included in the last bin. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 17:
STXS Stage 1.2 binning scheme. Bins fused together with solid colors are measured as a single bin.

png pdf
Figure 18:
Signal composition in each STXS bin. Generator level bins are reported in the horizontal axis, corresponding analysis categories on the vertical axis. All quantities in the definitions of bins are measured in GeV.

png pdf
Figure 19:
Expected relative fractions of different STXS signal processes in each category. The total number of expected ${\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{W^{+}} \mathrm{W^{-}}}$ signal events in each category is also shown.

png pdf
Figure 20:
Distribution of events as a function of the statistical significance of their corresponding bin in the analysis template, including all channels. Signal and background contributions are shown after the fit to data.

png pdf
Figure 21:
Observed likelihood profile for the global signal strength modifier $\mu $. The dashed curve corresponds to likelihood profile obtained considering statistical uncertainties only.

png pdf
Figure 22:
Observed signal strength modifiers for the main SM production modes.

png pdf
Figure 23:
Correlation matrix between the signal strength modifiers of the main production modes of the Higgs boson.

png pdf
Figure 24:
Two-dimensional likelihood profile as a function of the coupling modifiers $\kappa _V$ and $\kappa _f$, using the $\kappa $-framework parametrization. The 95% and 68% CL contours are shown as continuous and dashed lines, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 25:
Observed cross sections in each STXS bin, normalized to the SM expectation.

png pdf
Figure 26:
Correlation matrix between the measured STXS bins. All quantities in bin definitions are measured in GeV.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Trigger requirements on the data set used in the analysis.

png pdf
Table 2:
Overview of the selection defining the analysis categories.

png pdf
Table 3:
Summary of the selection used in different flavor ggH categories.

png pdf
Table 4:
Summary of the selection used in same flavor ggH categories. The DYMVA threshold is optimized separately in each sub-category and data set.

png pdf
Table 5:
Selection used in the different flavor VBF categories.

png pdf
Table 6:
Selection used in the same flavor VBF categories. The DYMVA threshold is optimized separately in each sub-category and data set.

png pdf
Table 7:
Event selection and categorization in the WHSS channel.

png pdf
Table 8:
Event selection and categorization in the WH3$\ell$ channel.

png pdf
Table 9:
Event selection and categorization in the ZH3$\ell$ channel.

png pdf
Table 10:
Event selection and categorization in the ZH4$\ell$ channel.

png pdf
Table 11:
Summary of the selection applied to different flavor VH2j categories.

png pdf
Table 12:
Contributions of different sources of uncertainty in the signal strength measurement. The systematic component includes the combined effect from all sources besides background normalization and the size of the dataset, which make up the statistical part.

png pdf
Table 13:
Number of events by process in ggH DF tagged categories after the fit to data (scaling the 4 main production modes separately). Numbers in parenthesis indicate expected yields.

png pdf
Table 14:
Number of events by process in ggH SF tagged categories after the fit to data (scaling the 4 main production modes separately). Numbers in parenthesis indicate expected yields.

png pdf
Table 15:
Number of events by process in VBF and VH2j tagged categories after the fit to data (scaling the 4 main production modes separately). Numbers in parenthesis indicate expected yields.

png pdf
Table 16:
Number of events by process in WHSS, WH3$\ell$, ZH3$\ell$ and ZH4$\ell$ tagged categories after the fit to data (scaling the 4 main production modes separately). Numbers in parenthesis indicate expected yields.

png pdf
Table 17:
Observed cross sections in each STXS bin. The uncertainties on the observed cross sections and their ratio to the SM expectation do not include the theoretical uncertainties on the latter. In cases where the ratio to the SM cross section is measured below zero, an upper limit at 68% confidence level on the observed cross section is reported. All masses and momenta in STXS bin definitions are measured in GeV.
Summary
A measurement of production cross sections for the Higgs boson have been performed targeting the ggH, VBF, WH, and ZH modes in the ${\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{W^{+}}\mathrm{W^{-}}} $ decay channel. Results are presented in terms of signal strength modifiers, coupling modifiers, and STXS cross sections. The measurement has been performed on data from pp collisions recorded by the CMS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV in 2016, 2017, and 2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Specific event selections targeting different final states have been employed, and results have been extracted via a simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to all analysis categories. The overall signal strength for production of a Higgs boson is found to be $\mu = $ 0.95$^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$, in good agreement with the SM expectation.
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 $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 06 (2013) 081 CMS-HIG-12-036
1303.4571
4 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2016) 45 1606.02266
5 N. Berger et al. Simplified template cross sections -- stage 1.1 1906.02754
6 CMS Collaboration Measurement of Higgs boson production and properties in the WW decay channel with leptonic final states JHEP 01 (2014) 096 CMS-HIG-13-023
1312.1129
7 CMS Collaboration Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a $ \mathrm{W} $ boson pair in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 791 (2019) 96 CMS-HIG-16-042
1806.05246
8 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
9 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the transverse momentum spectrum of the Higgs boson produced in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV using $ \mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{W}{}\mathrm{W} $ decays JHEP 03 (2017) 032 CMS-HIG-15-010
1606.01522
10 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 (2021) 081805 CMS-HIG-20-015
2107.11486
11 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
12 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
13 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections in the 4$ \ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 80 (2020) 942 2004.03969
14 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 2004.03447
15 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of gluon fusion and vector-boson-fusion production of the Higgs boson in $ H\rightarrow W W^* \rightarrow e\nu \mu\nu $ decays using $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector ATLAS-CONF-2021-014, CERN, Geneva
16 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
17 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
18 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
19 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
20 CMS Collaboration Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P02027 CMS-MUO-17-001
1912.03516
21 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
22 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 81 (2021) 378 CMS-HIG-19-008
2011.03652
23 W. Waltenberger, R. Fruhwirth, and P. Vanlaer Adaptive vertex fitting JPG 34 (2007) N343
24 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
25 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
26 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
27 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (2017) P02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
28 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 TeV data collected by CMS in 2016-2018 CDS
29 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P05011 CMS-BTV-16-002
1712.07158
30 CMS Collaboration CMS Phase 1 heavy flavour identification performance and developments CDS
31 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector JINST 14 (2019) P07004 CMS-JME-17-001
1903.06078
32 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup Per Particle Identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
33 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
34 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
35 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
36 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions with QED corrections NPB 877 (2013) 290 1308.0598
37 NNPDF Collaboration Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties at NNLO and at LO NPB 855 (2012) 153 1107.2652
38 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
39 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
40 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA 8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
41 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
42 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
43 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
44 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
45 E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM JHEP 02 (2012) 088 1111.2854
46 P. Nason and C. Oleari NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG JHEP 02 (2010) 037 0911.5299
47 G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano $ \mathrm{HW^{\pm}} $/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO JHEP 10 (2013) 083 1306.2542
48 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
49 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
50 K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production JHEP 10 (2013) 222 1309.0017
51 K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator JHEP 05 (2015) 140 1501.04637
52 R. Frederix and K. Hamilton Extending the MINLO method JHEP 05 (2016) 042 1512.02663
53 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
54 S. Bolognesi et al. On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC PRD 86 (2012) 095031 1208.4018
55 P. Nason and G. Zanderighi $ W^+ W^- $ , $ W Z $ and $ Z Z $ production in the POWHEG-BOX-V2 EPJC 74 (2014) 2702 1311.1365
56 J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis An update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders PRD 60 (1999) 113006 hep-ph/9905386
57 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams Vector boson pair production at the LHC JHEP 07 (2011) 018 1105.0020
58 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and W. T. Giele A multi-threaded version of MCFM EPJC 75 (2015) 246 1503.06182
59 F. Caola et al. QCD corrections to vector boson pair production in gluon fusion including interference effects with off-shell Higgs at the LHC JHEP 07 (2016) 087 1605.04610
60 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi A Positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
61 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
62 E. Re Single-top $ Wt $-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
63 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
64 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
65 M. Abadi et al. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems 2015 Software available from tensorflow.org
66 J. Therhaag et al. TMVA - toolkit for multivariate data analysis AIP Conference Proceedings 1504 (2012), no. 1 physics/0703039
67 M. Czakon et al. Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW JHEP 10 (2017) 186 1705.04105
68 P. Meade, H. Ramani, and M. Zeng Transverse momentum resummation effects in $ \mathrm{W}^+{}\mathrm{W}^- $ measurements PRD 90 (2014) 114006 1407.4481
69 P. Jaiswal and T. Okui Explanation of the $ \mathrm{W}{}\mathrm{W} $ excess at the LHC by jet-veto resummation PRD 90 (2014) 073009 1407.4537
70 CMS Collaboration An embedding technique to determine $ \tau\tau $ backgrounds in proton-proton collision data JINST 14 (2019) P06032. 57 p CMS-TAU-18-001
1903.01216
71 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 ATL-PHYS-PUB 2011-11, CMS NOTE 2011/005, CERN
72 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PRL 117 (2016) 182002 1606.02625
73 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2018) 161 CMS-FSQ-15-005
1802.02613
74 CMS Collaboration A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel PLB 805 (2020) 135425 CMS-HIG-19-004
2002.06398
75 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties: Report of the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group CERN-2013-004 1307.1347
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN