CMS-PAS-HIG-20-015

CMS-PAS-HIG-20-015
Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the decay mode to a pair of $\tau$ leptons
CMS Collaboration
June 2021

Abstract: Measurements of the inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections of the Higgs boson are presented, using the $\tau$ lepton decay channel. The differential cross sections are measured as a function of the Higgs boson transverse momentum, jet multiplicity, and transverse momentum of the leading jet in the event if any. The analysis is performed using proton-proton data collected by the CMS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and amounting to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb $^{-1}$ . These are the first differential measurements of the Higgs boson cross section in the final state of two $\tau$ leptons, and they constitute a significant improvement over measurements in other final states in parts of the phase space, namely in events with a large jet multiplicity or with Lorentz-boosted Higgs bosons.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PRL 128 (2022) 081805. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures & Tables	Summary	Additional Figures	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Observed and expected ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distributions in the different reconstructed ranges of the differential observable, obtained by reweighting every ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distribution of each category, year, and final state by a factor proportional to the ratio between the signal and background yields in bins with 90 $< {m_{\tau \tau}} <$ 150 GeV. The reweighting is such that the signal normalization is conserved. The signal and background distributions are the results of a multidimensional maximum likelihood regularized fit. The green line in the ratio plot corresponds to the SM signal expectation. The contribution "Others" include the diboson and single top quark productions, as well as the Higgs boson events outside of the fiducial region.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Observed and expected ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distributions in the different reconstructed ranges of the differential observable, obtained by reweighting every ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distribution of each category, year, and final state by a factor proportional to the ratio between the signal and background yields in bins with 90 $< {m_{\tau \tau}} <$ 150 GeV. The reweighting is such that the signal normalization is conserved. The signal and background distributions are the results of a multidimensional maximum likelihood regularized fit. The green line in the ratio plot corresponds to the SM signal expectation. The contribution "Others" include the diboson and single top quark productions, as well as the Higgs boson events outside of the fiducial region.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Observed and expected ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distributions in the different reconstructed ranges of the differential observable, obtained by reweighting every ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distribution of each category, year, and final state by a factor proportional to the ratio between the signal and background yields in bins with 90 $< {m_{\tau \tau}} <$ 150 GeV. The reweighting is such that the signal normalization is conserved. The signal and background distributions are the results of a multidimensional maximum likelihood regularized fit. The green line in the ratio plot corresponds to the SM signal expectation. The contribution "Others" include the diboson and single top quark productions, as well as the Higgs boson events outside of the fiducial region.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: Observed and expected ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distributions in the different reconstructed ranges of the differential observable, obtained by reweighting every ${m_{\tau \tau}}$ distribution of each category, year, and final state by a factor proportional to the ratio between the signal and background yields in bins with 90 $< {m_{\tau \tau}} <$ 150 GeV. The reweighting is such that the signal normalization is conserved. The signal and background distributions are the results of a multidimensional maximum likelihood regularized fit. The green line in the ratio plot corresponds to the SM signal expectation. The contribution "Others" include the diboson and single top quark productions, as well as the Higgs boson events outside of the fiducial region.
png pdf	Figure 2: Observed and expected differential fiducial cross section in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (left), ${N_\textrm {jets}}$ (center), and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}}$ (right). The signal samples are generated using POWHEG, and the predictions from NNLOPS are also shown as nominal model. The uncertainty bands in the theoretical predictions include uncertainties from the following sources: PDF, renormalization and factorization scale, underlying event and parton showering, and $\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \tau \tau)$ . The last bins include the overflow.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Observed and expected differential fiducial cross section in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (left), ${N_\textrm {jets}}$ (center), and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}}$ (right). The signal samples are generated using POWHEG, and the predictions from NNLOPS are also shown as nominal model. The uncertainty bands in the theoretical predictions include uncertainties from the following sources: PDF, renormalization and factorization scale, underlying event and parton showering, and $\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \tau \tau)$ . The last bins include the overflow.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Observed and expected differential fiducial cross section in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (left), ${N_\textrm {jets}}$ (center), and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}}$ (right). The signal samples are generated using POWHEG, and the predictions from NNLOPS are also shown as nominal model. The uncertainty bands in the theoretical predictions include uncertainties from the following sources: PDF, renormalization and factorization scale, underlying event and parton showering, and $\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \tau \tau)$ . The last bins include the overflow.
png pdf	Figure 2-c: Observed and expected differential fiducial cross section in bins of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ (left), ${N_\textrm {jets}}$ (center), and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}}$ (right). The signal samples are generated using POWHEG, and the predictions from NNLOPS are also shown as nominal model. The uncertainty bands in the theoretical predictions include uncertainties from the following sources: PDF, renormalization and factorization scale, underlying event and parton showering, and $\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \tau \tau)$ . The last bins include the overflow.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Selection criteria in the four di- $\tau$ final states. The ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ ranges are related to different triggers used during different data-taking periods. The symbol $m_T$ denotes the transverse mass between two objects [10]. In events collected in 2016 in the $\mu {\tau _\mathrm {h}}$ channel, ${\tau _\mathrm {h}}$ candidates with 0.2 $< {\| \eta \|} <$ 0.3 are discarded because of a significantly larger misidentification rate of muons as ${\tau _\mathrm {h}}$ objects.
png pdf	Table 2: Observed and expected fiducial cross sections in ${N_\textrm {jets}}$ , ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm{H}}}$ , and ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}}$ bins. The signal strengths obtained from the regularized and unregularized fits are indicated. The observed cross section corresponds to the result of the regularized fit. The signal strengths do not include yield uncertainties in the predictions of the SM Higgs boson production cross sections nor branching fractions. Results for ${N_\textrm {jets}} =$ 0 are given twice in the table: the first occurence is related to the fit of ${N_\textrm {jets}}$ -based categories, while the second occurence corresponds to the fit of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}}$ -based categories.

Summary

In summary, measurements of the differential fiducial cross sections of the Higgs boson have been performed for the first time at the LHC in the decay channel of two

$\tau$ leptons. The differential cross section as a function of the jet multiplicity, Higgs boson transverse momentum, and tranverse momentum of the leading jet, are in agreement with the expectations of the standard model, with a competitive precision with respect to measurements in other final states in the phase spaces with a large jet multiplicity, or with a Higgs boson transverse momentum between 120 and 600 GeV. In addition, the fiducial inclusive cross section has been measured to be 426

$\pm$ 102 fb, for a standard-model expectation of 408

$\pm$ 27 fb.

Additional Figures
png pdf	Additional Figure 1: Response matrices for the reconstructed vs. generated Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ channel for 2018. The horizontal axis represents the generator-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins and the vertical axis represents the reconstruction-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins. Each column is normalized so that event yield in the column adds up to unity.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2: Response matrices for the reconstructed vs. generated Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ channel for 2018. The horizontal axis represents the generator-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins and the vertical axis represents the reconstruction-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins. Each column is normalized so that event yield in the column adds up to unity.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3: Response matrices for the reconstructed vs. generated Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ channel for 2018. The horizontal axis represents the generator-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins and the vertical axis represents the reconstruction-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins. Each column is normalized so that event yield in the column adds up to unity.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4: Response matrices for the reconstructed vs. generated Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ channel for 2018. The horizontal axis represents the generator-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins and the vertical axis represents the reconstruction-level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins. Each column is normalized so that event yield in the column adds up to unity.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 11: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 11-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 11-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 11-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 12: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 14: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 14-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 14-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 14-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 15: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 15-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 15-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 15-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 16: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 17: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 17-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 17-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 17-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 18: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 18-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 18-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 18-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 19: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 19-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 19-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 19-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 20: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 21: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 21-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 21-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 21-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 22: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 22-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 22-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 22-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 23: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 23-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 23-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 23-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 24: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 25: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 25-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 25-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 25-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 26: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 26-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 26-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 26-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 27: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 27-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 27-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 27-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 28: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 29: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 29-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 29-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 29-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 30: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 30-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 30-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 30-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 31: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 31-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 31-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 31-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 32: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2018. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 33: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 33-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 33-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 33-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 34: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 34-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 34-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 34-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 35: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 35-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 35-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 35-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 36: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2017. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 37: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 37-a: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 37-b: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 37-c: Postfit distributions in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 38: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 38-a: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 38-b: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 38-c: Postfit distributions in the $\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 39: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 39-a: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 39-b: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 39-c: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 40: Postfit distributions in the ${\mathrm {e}}\mu$ final state in 2016. This represents a fit to data with all years and final states.
png pdf	Additional Figure 41: Observed signal strength modifiers in ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{H}$ bins.
png pdf	Additional Figure 42: Observed signal strength modifiers in $N_{jets}$ bins.
png pdf	Additional Figure 43: Observed signal strength modifiers in ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{jet1}$ bins.
png pdf	Additional Figure 44: Correlation between signal strength modifiers in fiducial ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{H}$ bins obtained from fits to data without regularization.
png pdf	Additional Figure 45: Correlation between signal strength modifiers in fiducial ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{H}$ bins obtained from fits to data with regularization.
png pdf	Additional Figure 46: Correlation between signal strength modifiers in fiducial $N_{jets}$ bins obtained from fits to data without regularization.
png pdf	Additional Figure 47: Correlation between signal strength modifiers in fiducial $N_{jets}$ bins obtained from fits to data with regularization.
png pdf	Additional Figure 48: Correlation between signal strength modifiers in fiducial ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{jet1}$ bins obtained from fits to data without regularization.
png pdf	Additional Figure 49: Correlation between signal strength modifiers in fiducial ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{jet1}$ bins obtained from fits to data with regularization.

References
1	S. Alioli et al.	Higgsstrahlung at NNLL' + NaNLO matched to parton showers in GENEVA	PRD 100 (2019) 096016	1909.02026
2	M. Grazzini, A. Ilnicka, M. Spira, and M. Wiesemann	Modeling BSM effects on the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in an EFT approach	JHEP 03 (2017) 115	1612.00283
3	F. Bishara, U. Haisch, P. F. Monni, and E. Re	Constraining light-quark Yukawa couplings from Higgs distributions	PRL 118 (2017) 121801	1606.09253
4	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the transverse momentum spectrum of the Higgs boson produced in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV using $H \rightarrow WW$ decays	JHEP 03 (2017) 032	CMS-HIG-15-010 1606.01522
5	ATLAS Collaboration	Combined measurement of differential and total cross sections in the $H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ and the $H \rightarrow ZZ^* \rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channels at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 786 (2018) 114	1805.10197
6	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
7	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
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	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
10	CMS Collaboration	Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $\tau$ leptons with the CMS detector	PLB 779 (2018) 283	CMS-HIG-16-043 1708.00373
11	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
12	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
13	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
14	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
15	S. Alioli et al.	Jet pair production in POWHEG	JHEP 04 (2011) 081	1012.3380
16	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
17	K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi	NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production	JHEP 10 (2013) 222	1309.0017
18	K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi	Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator	JHEP 05 (2015) 140	1501.04637
19	CMS Collaboration	A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel	PLB 805 (2020) 135425	CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398
20	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
21	J. Alwall et al.	Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions	EPJC 53 (2008) 473	0706.2569
22	J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams	Vector boson pair production at the LHC	JHEP 07 (2011) 018	1105.0020
23	T. Gehrmann et al.	$W^+W^-$ production at hadron colliders in next to next to leading order QCD	PRL 113 (2014) 212001	1408.5243
24	K. Melnikov and F. Petriello	Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through $O(\alpha_s^2)$	PRD 74 (2006) 114017	hep-ph/0609070
25	M. Czakon and A. Mitov	Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders	CPC 185 (2014) 2930	1112.5675
26	T. Sjostrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	CPC 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
27	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
28	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4 --- a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
29	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
30	CMS Collaboration	Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV	JINST 7 (2012) P10002	CMS-MUO-10-004 1206.4071
31	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
32	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- $k_t$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
33	CMS Collaboration	Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
34	CMS Collaboration	Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P05011	CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158
35	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in pp data at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	JINST 10 (2015) P02006	CMS-JME-13-003 1411.0511
36	CMS Collaboration	Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_\tau$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P10005	CMS-TAU-16-003 1809.02816
37	CMS Collaboration	An embedding technique to determine $\tau\tau$ backgrounds in proton-proton collision data	JINST 14 (2019) P06032	CMS-TAU-18-001 1903.01216
38	CMS Collaboration	Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS	Submitted to EPJC	CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927
39	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
40	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 TeV data collected by CMS in 2016-2018	CDS
41	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration	Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector		1610.07922
42	L. Bianchini, J. Conway, E. K. Friis, and C. Veelken	Reconstruction of the Higgs mass in $H \to \tau\tau$ events by dynamical likelihood techniques	J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513 (2014) 022035
43	C. Bierlich et al.	Robust independent validation of experiment and theory: Rivet version 3	SciPost Phys. 8 (2020) 026	1912.05451
44	A. N. Tikhonov	Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method	Soviet Math. Dokl. 4 (1963) 1035
45	A. Hocker and V. Kartvelishvili	SVD approach to data unfolding	NIMA 372 (1996) 469	hep-ph/9509307
46	S. Schmitt	TUnfold: an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics	JINST 7 (2012) T10003	1205.6201