HIG-17-028

$Revision:493066$
$HeadURL:svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/HIG-17-028/trunk/HIG-17-028.tex$
$Id:HIG-17-028.tex4930662019-03-2913:53:07Ztklijnsm$

HIG-17-028

# Measurement and interpretation of differential cross sections for Higgs
boson production at $\sqrt{s}=13$

###### Abstract

Differential Higgs boson ($\PH$) production cross sections are sensitive
probes for physics beyond the standard model. New physics may contribute in
the gluon-gluon fusion loop, the dominant Higgs boson production mechanism at
the LHC, and manifest itself through deviations from the distributions
predicted by the standard model. Combined spectra for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$,
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$ decay channels and the inclusive Higgs
boson production cross section are presented, based on proton-proton collision
data recorded with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s}=13$corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of 35.9. The transverse momentum spectrum is used to
place limits on the Higgs boson couplings to the top, bottom, and charm
quarks, as well as its direct coupling to the gluon field. No significant
deviations from the standard model are observed in any differential
distribution. The measured total cross section is $61.1\pm 6.0\stat\pm
3.7\syst\unit{pb}$, and the precision of the measurement of the differential
cross section of the Higgs boson transverse momentum is improved by about 15%
with respect to the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel alone.

##  0.1 Introduction

The Higgs boson ($\PH$), whose existence is predicted by the
Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism [1, 2, 3], is responsible for electroweak
symmetry breaking in the standard model (SM). Since the discovery [4, 5, 6] of
a particle compatible with the SM Higgs boson at the CERN LHC, extensive
effort has been dedicated to the measurement of its properties and couplings.

In this analysis we measure the inclusive and differential cross sections for
the production of Higgs bosons. Compared with inclusive measurements [7, 8,
9], differential distributions provide extended information on the Higgs boson
couplings, which can be extracted by fitting parametrized spectra to a
combination of differential cross sections. When the Higgs boson couplings to
quarks and to other bosons are varied with respect to their SM values,
distortions of the predicted differential cross section spectra appear, which
are particularly pronounced in the transverse momentum ($\pt$) distribution.

A precise measurement of the Higgs boson couplings represents an important
test of the SM, as the couplings are sensitive to several SM extensions [10,
11]. While the couplings to the top ($y_{\cPqt}$) and bottom ($y_{\cPqb}$)
quarks are known with fair precision, there is still a relatively large
uncertainty in the measurement of the couplings to lighter quarks such as the
coupling to the charm quark ($y_{\cPqc}$). A proof-of-concept study
determining limits on the modification of the SM Higgs boson coupling
($y_{\cPqc}^{\text{SM}}$) to the charm quark,
$\kappa_{\cPqc}=y_{\cPqc}/y_{\cPqc}^{\text{SM}}$, from the Higgs boson
transverse momentum ($\pt^{\PH}$) distribution was performed in Ref. [12].
Reinterpreting the ATLAS Collaboration measurements in Ref. [13], this
analysis yields the overall bounds $\kappa_{\cPqc}\in[-16,18]$ at 95%
confidence level (CL). Using the same data set, a reinterpretation of a search
by the ATLAS Collaboration for the $\PH\to\cPJgy\cPgg$ channel [14] yields
$\abs{\kappa_{\cPqc}}<429$ at 95% CL [15]. More recently, studies from the
ATLAS Collaboration [16, 17], using data collected at
$\sqrt{s}=13$corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $36.1$, yield an
observed upper limit on the $\PH\to\cPJgy$ branching fraction of $3.5\times
10^{-4}$ at 95% CL that is an improvement of about a factor two with respect
to the result obtained in Ref. [14], and an observed upper limit on the
product of the production cross section and branching fraction
$\sigma(\Pp\Pp\to\cPZ\PH)\mathcal{B}(\PH\to\cPqc\overline{\cPqc})$ of $110$
times the SM value at 95% CL.

Both the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have reported measurements of
differential Higgs boson production cross sections at $\sqrt{s}=8$ and $13$
[18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. The CMS Collaboration has
measured differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ [25] and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ^{(\ast)}\to 4\ell$ ($\ell=\Pe$ or
$\Pgm$) [27] decay channels using data recorded by the CMS experiment in 2016
at $\sqrt{s}=13\,$TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of
$35.9\fbinv$. We report measurements of differential cross sections obtained
by combining these results. Additionally, we include a search for the Higgs
boson produced with large and decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark ($\bbbar$)
pair [29] in the combination of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectra. The differential
cross sections for the following observables are combined: $\pt^{\PH}$, the
Higgs boson rapidity $\abs{y_{\PH}}$, the number of hadronic jets
$N_{\text{jets}}$, and the transverse momentum of the leading hadronic jet
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$.

We interpret the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum in terms of Higgs boson couplings. In
order to take into account as many degrees of freedom as possible, multiple
couplings are varied simultaneously. We present results obtained by varying
simultaneously (i) the modifier of the Higgs boson coupling to the charm quark
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$ and the bottom quark $\kappa_{\cPqb}$, (ii) the modifier of
the Higgs boson coupling to the top quark $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and the coefficient
$c_{\Pg}$ of the anomalous direct coupling to the gluon field in the heavy top
quark mass limit, and (iii) $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$.

The SM production cross sections and decay rates depend on the Higgs boson
mass $m_{\PH}$. We assume a Higgs boson mass of $125.09$for all measurements
in this paper, based on the combined ATLAS and CMS measurement using proton-
proton collision data collected in 2011 and 2012 [8].

##  0.2 Theoretical predictions

Differential cross sections may be used to constrain model parameters. In the
case of Higgs boson production via gluon fusion, the dominant production mode
at the LHC, finite quark mass effects and moderate variations to Higgs boson
couplings may manifest themselves through distortions of the $\pt^{\PH}$
spectrum. We interpret the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum for gluon fusion in terms of
modifications of the couplings of the Higgs boson using two models: one
tailored to heavy quarks and thus sensitive to effects at high $\pt$ [30, 31],
and the other considering the effect of lighter quarks in the gluon fusion
loop [12]. The cross section for Higgs boson production in association with
top quarks is taken to scale quadratically with $\kappa_{\cPqt}$. The other
production processes are taken to be independent of these couplings. The
coupling modifiers are described in the context of the $\kappa$-framework
[32]:

$\kappa_{i}=\frac{y_{i}}{y_{i}^{\text{SM}}},$ (1)

where $y_{i}$ is the Higgs boson coupling to particle $i$. The SM value of any
$\kappa_{i}$ is equal to 1.

Recent developments in $\pt$ resummation procedures have allowed more accurate
calculations of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum when including the effects of lighter
quarks on Higgs boson production via gluon fusion [33, 34, 35, 36]. The
$\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum for gluon fusion has been calculated for simultaneous
variations of $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ [12], taking into account
the interference of the top quark loop with that from the bottom and charm
quarks in the gluon fusion production loop, providing a novel approach to
constrain these couplings via the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum. We parameterize the
variations computed in Ref. [12] with a quadratic polynomial for each bin of
the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum. The Higgs boson coupling to the top quark is fixed
to its SM value in this model. The calculations from Ref. [12] are given up to
the scale of the Higgs boson mass, and thus the $\PH\to\bbbar$ channel (for
which the lower limit of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum is $350$) is not used as
input for the results obtained with this model.

A second model producing simultaneous variations of $\kappa_{\cPqt}$,
$c_{\Pg}$, and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ by adding dimension-6 operators to the SM
Lagrangian has been built in Refs. [30, 31]. This study employs an analytic
resummation performed up to next-to-next-to-leading-logarithmic (NNLL) order
in order to obtain the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum at next-to-next-to-leading
order+NNLL (NNLO+NNLL) accuracy. The dimension-6 operator whose coefficient is
$c_{\Pg}$ yields a direct coupling of the Higgs field to the gluon field with
the same underlying tensor structure as in the heavy-top mass limit. In the
SM, the value of $c_{\Pg}$ equals 0. The introduction of $c_{\Pg}$ in the
effective Lagrangian is given in Ref. [31] and the inclusive cross section is
given by
$\sigma\simeq\left|12c_{\Pg}+\kappa_{\cPqt}\right|^{2}\sigma^{\text{SM}}$. Two
other operators are included in the Lagrangian to describe modifications of
the top and bottom Yukawa couplings with coefficients $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and
$\kappa_{\cPqb}$, respectively. While the model allows simultaneous variation
of all three coupling modifiers, we consider only simultaneous variations of
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and $c_{\Pg}$, and of $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$.
The precomputed spectra from Ref. [30] are used as input and parametrized
using a quadratic polynomial.

##  0.3 The CMS detector

The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6m
internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8T. Within the solenoid
volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal
electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter,
each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend
the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the barrel and endcap
detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization chambers embedded in the steel
flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. A more detailed description of the CMS
detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the
relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [37].

##  0.4 Inputs to the combined analysis

For all the analyses used as input to the combination ($\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$
[25], $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ^{(\ast)}\to 4\ell$ [27], and $\PH\to\bbbar$ [29]), the
data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $35.9\fbinv$ recorded by
the CMS experiment in 2016. The $\PH\to\bbbar$ decay channel is only included
in the combination of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectra, improving the measurements at
the higher end of the distribution where the data from the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$
and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ decay channels are limited. All analyses provide the
parametrization of the folding matrix $M_{ji}^{k}$ (which is the probability
for an event in generator-level bin $i$ to be reconstructed in bin $j$ and
category $k$) in terms of a common generator-level binning, that is used for
the combined spectra. Given the limited statistical precision in the
individual channels, the results of the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ and $\PH\to\bbbar$
channels individually are reported for a coarser binning, which is provided in
Tables 0.4–0.4 for each of the observables. This binning coincides with the
binning at the reconstruction level.

The SM prediction for the differential cross sections is simulated with
$\MGvATNLO$ v2.2.2 [38] for each of the four dominant Higgs boson production
modes: gluon-gluon fusion ($\Pg\Pg\PH$), vector boson fusion, associated
production with a $\PW$/$\cPZ$ boson, and associated production with a top
quark-antiquark pair. A contribution from Higgs boson production in
association with bottom quarks is not simulated, but included assuming its
acceptance is equal to that from Higgs boson production via gluon fusion. The
matrix element calculation includes the emission of up to two additional
partons and is performed at NLO accuracy in perturbative quantum
chromodynamics (QCD). Events are interfaced to 8.205 [39] for parton showering
and hadronization with the CUETP8M1 [40] underlying event tune. The matrix
element calculation is matched to the parton shower following the prescription
in Ref. [41]. A weight depending on $\pt^{\PH}$ and $N_{\text{jets}}$ is
applied to simulated $\Pg\Pg\PH$ events to match the predictions from the
nnlops program [42, 43], as discussed in Ref. [9]. The set of parton
distribution functions used in all simulations is NNPDF3.0 [44]. The hadronic
jets are clustered from the particle-flow candidates [45] in the case of data
and simulation, and from stable particles excluding neutrinos in the case of
generated events, using the anti-$\kt$ clustering algorithm [46] with a
distance parameter of $0.4$. The measurements are reported in terms of
kinematic observables defined before the decay of the Higgs boson, at the
generator level.

Each of the analyses used as input to the combination corresponds to a
different fiducial phase space definition and applies a different event
categorization. In the case of the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ analysis, the fiducial
phase space is defined by requiring the ratio of the leading (subleading)
photon $\pt$ to the diphoton mass to be greater than $1/3$ ($1/4$). In
addition, for each photon candidate the scalar sum of the generator-level
$\pt$ of stable particles contained in a cone of radius $\Delta R=0.3$ around
the candidate is required to be less than 10, where $\Delta
R=\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}}$ is the angular
separation between particles and $\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between
two particles in radians. The selected photon pairs are categorized according
to their estimated relative invariant mass resolution [25]. In the case of the
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ analysis, the 4-lepton mass is required to be greater than
70, the leading $\cPZ$ boson candidate invariant mass must be greater than 40,
and leptons must be separated in angular space by at least $\Delta R>0.02$.
Furthermore, at least two leptons must each have a $\pt>10$and at least one a
$\pt>20$. The selected events are categorized according to their lepton
configuration in the final state (4 electrons, 4 muons, or 2 electrons and 2
muons). In the case of the $\PH\to\bbbar$ analysis, the analysis strategy
requires the presence of a single anti-$\kt$ jet with a distance parameter of
$0.8$, $\pt>450\,$GeV, and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$. For this analysis, the data is
not unfolded to a fiducial phase space. Soft and wide-angle radiation is
removed using the soft-drop grooming algorithm [47, 48]. The jet mass after
application of the soft-drop algorithm, $m_{\text{SD}}$, peaks close to the
Higgs boson mass in the case of signal events. To avoid finite-cone effects
and the nonperturbative regime of the $m_{\text{SD}}$ calculation, events are
selected based on the dimensionless mass scale variable for QCD jets defined
as $\rho=\log\left(m_{\text{SD}}^{2}/\pt^{2}\right)$ [47], which relates the
jet $\pt$ to the jet mass. Events with isolated electrons, muons, or $\PGt$
leptons with $\pt>10$and $\abs{\eta}<2.5$ are vetoed in order to reduce the
background from SM electroweak processes, and events with a missing transverse
momentum greater than $140$are vetoed in order to reduce the background from
top quark-antiquark pair production. Additionally, a selection criterion is
applied based on the compatibility of the single anti-$\kt$ jet with having a
two-prong substructure [49, 50, 51, 52]. Events are categorized according to
their likelihood of consisting of two $\cPqb$ quarks, which is computed using
the double-$\cPqb$ tagger algorithm [53].

Minor modifications are applied to the individual analyses in Refs. [25, 27,
29] to provide the inputs used for the combination of differential
observables. For $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$, an additional bin, $\pt^{\PH}>600$, is
included in the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum. For $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, the binning is
modified for multiple kinematic observables to align with the binning of the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ analysis. Furthermore, the branching fractions of the two
$\cPZ$ bosons to the various lepton configurations are fixed to their SM
values, whereas in Ref. [27] these are allowed to float. For $\PH\to\bbbar$
the signal is split into two $\pt$ bins at the generator level: the first with
$350\leq\pt<600$, where the lower limit has been extended downwards with
respect to the individual analysis, and the second an overflow bin with
$\pt\geq 600$, which aligns with the binning of the other channels. At the
reconstruction level two bins are employed, with $450\leq\pt<600$ and $\pt\geq
600$, which is a slight modification with respect to the binning used in Ref.
[29]. The redefinition of the reconstructed $\pt$ categories necessitates a
reevaluation of the background model, which is performed using the same
procedure as in the original analysis. For the purpose of the combination in
this analysis, the fiducial measurements from the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels are extrapolated to the inclusive phase space [38,
42, 43].

The reconstruction-level binning for $\pt^{\PH}$ for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$,
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$ channels. This binning coincides with the
binning of the unfolded cross sections in which the individual results are
reported.  Channel $\pt^{\PH}$ binning () $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ [0, 15) [15, 30)
[30, 45) [45, 80) [80, 120) [120, 200) [200, 350) [350, 600) [600, $\infty$)
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ [0, 15) [15, 30) [30, 80) [80, 200) [200, $\infty$)
$\PH\to\bbbar$ None [350, 600) [600, $\infty$)

The binning for $N_{\text{jets}}$ for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and the
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels. This binning coincides with the binning of the
unfolded cross sections in which the individual results are reported.  Channel
$N_{\text{jets}}$ binning $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ 0 1 2 3 $\geq$4 $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$
0 1 2 $\geq$3

The binning for $\abs{y_{\PH}}$ for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and the
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels. This binning coincides with the binning of the
unfolded cross sections in which the individual results are reported.  Channel
$\abs{y_{\PH}}$ binning $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ [0.0, 0.15) [0.15, 0.30) [0.30,
0.60) [0.60, 0.90) [0.90, 1.20) [1.20, 2.50] $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ [0.0, 0.15)
[0.15, 0.30) [0.30, 0.60) [0.60, 0.90) [0.90, 1.20) [1.20, 2.50]

The binning for $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and the
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels. This binning coincides with the binning of the
unfolded cross sections in which the individual results are reported.  Channel
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ binning () $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ [0, 30) [30, 55) [55, 95)
[95, 120) [120, 200) [200, $\infty$) $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ [0, 30) [30, 55) [55,
95) [95, $\infty$)

##  0.5 Statistical analysis

The cross sections are extracted through a simultaneous extended maximum
likelihood fit to the diphoton mass, four-lepton mass, and $m_{\text{SD}}$
distributions in all the analysis categories of the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$,
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$ channels, respectively.

The number of expected signal events $n^{\text{sig}}$ in a given reconstructed
kinematic bin $i$, given analysis category $k$ and given decay channel $m$ is
obtained from:

$n_{i}^{\text{sig},\,km}(\vec{\Delta\sigma}|\vec{\theta})=\sum_{j=1}^{n_{\text{bins}}^{\text{gen}}}\Delta\sigma_{j}\,L(\vec{\theta})\,\mathcal{B}^{m}\,M_{ji}^{km}(\vec{\theta}),$
(2)

where:

  * •

$j$ is a kinematic bin index at the generator level;

  * •

$n_{\text{bins}}^{\text{gen}}$ is the number of kinematic bins at the
generator level, which is the same for all decay channels;

  * •

$\vec{\Delta\sigma}$ is the set of differential cross sections at the
generator level, and $L$ is the integrated luminosity of the samples used in
this analysis;

  * •

$\mathcal{B}^{m}$ is the branching fraction of the decay channel $m$. The
overall effect of the branching fraction uncertainties on the combined spectra
is below 1%, and has been neglected.

  * •

$M_{ji}^{km}$ is the folding matrix, which is determined from Monte Carlo
simulation; note that the corresponding matrix $\vec{M}^{\,km}$ need not be
square; the number of reconstructed bins may be smaller than the number of
bins at the generator level; and

  * •

$\vec{\theta}$ is the set of nuisance parameters.

The bin-to-bin migrations are taken into account via the folding matrix,
effectively allowing unfolding of the detector effects. Following the
prescription in Ref. [54], we find that no regularization of the unfolding
procedure is needed.

An extended likelihood function for a single decay channel $m$ is constructed:

$\mathcal{L}_{m}(\vec{\Delta\sigma}|\vec{\theta})=\prod_{i=1}^{n_{\text{bins}}^{\text{reco},\,m}}\prod_{k=1}^{n_{\text{cat}}^{m}}\prod_{l=1}^{n_{\mathcal{O}}^{m}}\left(\text{pdf}_{i}^{\,km}(\mathcal{O}_{l}^{m}|\vec{\Delta\sigma},\vec{\theta})\right)^{N_{\text{obs}}^{iklm}}\\\
\times\text{Poisson}\left(N_{\text{obs}}^{ikm}\,\left|\,n_{i}^{\text{sig},\,km}(\vec{\Delta\sigma}|\vec{\theta})+n^{\text{bkg},\,km}_{i}(\vec{\theta})\right)\right.,$
(3)

where:

  * •

$\mathcal{O}^{m}$ is the observable, the diphoton mass, the four-lepton mass,
or $m_{\text{SD}}$ for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$, $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and
$\PH\to\bbbar$ decay channels, respectively;

  * •

$n_{\text{bins}}^{\text{reco},\,m}$ is the number of reconstructed bins,
$n_{\text{cat}}^{m}$ is the number of categories for the decay channel (see
the individual analyses [25, 27, 29] for more details), and
$n_{\mathcal{O}}^{m}$ is the number of bins for observable $\mathcal{O}$;

  * •

$N_{\text{obs}}^{iklm}$ is the number of observed events reconstructed in
kinematic bin $i$, category $k$ and observable bin $l$, and
$N_{\text{obs}}^{ikm}$ is the same but summed over all bins of the observable;

  * •

$n^{\text{bkg},\,km}_{i}$ is the number of expected background events; and

  * •

$\text{pdf}_{i}^{\,km}(\mathcal{O}^{m}_{l}|\vec{\Delta\sigma},\vec{\theta})$
is the probability density function for the observable, based on the signal
and background distributions of the observable which are determined via
simulation.

In order to combine the decay channels, the likelihoods for the individual
decay channels are multiplied:

$\mathcal{L}(\vec{\Delta\sigma}|\vec{\theta})=\prod_{m=1}^{n_{c}}\mathcal{L}_{m}(\vec{\Delta\sigma}|\vec{\theta})\,\text{pdf}(\vec{\theta}),$
(4)

where $n_{c}$ is the number of decay channels included in the combination,
$\mathcal{L}_{m}$ is the likelihood formula from Eq. (3) specific to the decay
channel $m$, and $\text{pdf}(\vec{\theta})$ is the probability density
function of the nuisance parameters. For the individual analyses, the number
of categories, invariant mass bins, and even the number of reconstructed bins
may differ, although the number of bins at the generator level and their
binning need to be aligned between decay channels. Note that a single common
set of differential cross sections and nuisance parameters is fitted to the
data in all decay channels simultaneously.

The test statistic $q$, which is asymptotically distributed as a $\chi^{2}$,
is defined as [55, 56]:

$q(\vec{\Delta\sigma})=-2\,\ln\left(\frac{\mathcal{L}\left(\vec{\Delta\sigma}\left|\hat{\vec{\theta}}_{\vec{\Delta\sigma}}\right)\right.}{\mathcal{L}\left(\hat{\vec{\Delta\sigma}}\left|\hat{\vec{\theta}}\right)\right.}\right).$
(5)

The quantities $\hat{\vec{\Delta\sigma}}$ and $\hat{\vec{\theta}}$ are the
unconditional maximum likelihood estimates for the parameters
$\vec{\Delta\sigma}$ and $\vec{\theta}$, respectively, while
$\hat{\vec{\theta}}_{\vec{\Delta\sigma}}$ denotes the maximum likelihood
estimate for $\vec{\theta}$ conditional on the values of $\vec{\Delta\sigma}$.

The Higgs boson coupling modifiers are fitted via a largely analogous
procedure. In the likelihood function (4), the differential cross sections
$\vec{\Delta\sigma}$ are replaced by parametrizations of theoretical spectra,
instead of allowing them to be determined in the fit:

$\vec{\Delta\sigma}\;\to\;\vec{\Delta\sigma}(\kappa_{\text{a}},\kappa_{\text{b}}),$
(6)

where $\kappa_{\text{a}}$ and $\kappa_{\text{b}}$ are the coupling modifiers
to be fitted.

##  0.6 Systematic uncertainties

The experimental systematic uncertainties from the input analyses are
incorporated in the combination as nuisance parameters in the extended
likelihood fit and are profiled. Among the decay channels, correlations are
taken into account for the systematic uncertainties in the jet energy scale
and resolution, and the integrated luminosity. Detailed descriptions of the
experimental systematic uncertainties per decay channel can be found in Refs.
[25, 27, 29].

The measurement is made for the full phase space rather than limited to a
fiducial phase space (as is the case for the original $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ analyses). This means that the uncertainties in the
acceptances for the individual analyses and in the branching fractions may
affect the results. The effect of the acceptance uncertainties per bin on the
overall uncertainty, including the effect of the Higgs coupling modifiers on
the acceptances, is less than 1% and so this is neglected in the combination.
For certain measurements the production cross sections of non-$\Pg\Pg\PH$
production modes are assumed to be their respective SM value. In these cases,
the uncertainty in the inclusive production cross section from non-$\Pg\Pg\PH$
modes, determined to be about 2.1% [57], has been taken into account as a
nuisance parameter.

The theoretical predictions described in Section 0.2 are subject to
theoretical uncertainties from the renormalisation scale $\mu_{\text{R}}$ and
the factorisation scale $\mu_{\text{F}}$. The standard approach to evaluate
the impact of these uncertainties is to compute an envelope of scale
variations, and to assign the extrema of the envelope as the uncertainty. To
this end, $\mu_{\text{R}}$ and $\mu_{\text{F}}$ are independently varied
between $0.5$, $1$, and $2$ times their nominal value, whereas the fraction
$\frac{\mu_{\text{R}}}{\mu_{\text{F}}}$ is constrained not to be less than
$0.5$ or greater than $2.0$. As the theoretical spectra in the
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$/$c_{\Pg}$/$\kappa_{\cPqb}$ case and the
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$/$\kappa_{\cPqb}$ case contain a resummation, the uncertainty
in the resummation scale $Q$ is also considered, and it is evaluated by
varying $Q$ from $0.5$ to $2$ times its central value (while keeping
$\mu_{\text{F}}$ and $\mu_{\text{R}}$ at their respective central values). The
theoretical uncertainties are assigned by applying the minimum and maximum
scale variations per bin. The resulting uncertainties for the spectra under
variations of $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ and variations of
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$, $c_{\Pg}$, and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ are shown in Tables 0.6 and
0.6, respectively.

Uncertainties in the predicted $\pt^{\PH}$ spectra related to variations of
theory parameters for the $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ case.  Binning
() [0, 15) [15, 30) [30, 45) [45, 80) [80, 120) $\Delta^{\text{scale}}$ (%)
8.9% 6.6% 18.1% 22.0% 21.6%

Uncertainties in the predicted $\pt^{\PH}$ spectra related to variations of
theory parameters for the $\kappa_{\cPqt}$, $c_{\Pg}$, and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$
case.  Binning () [0, 15) [15, 30) [30, 45) [45, 80) [80, 120) [120, 200)
[200, 350) [350, 600) [600, 800) $\Delta^{\text{scale}}$ (%) 12.7% 7.4% 9.5%
12.8% 17.4% 19.3% 20.9% 23.4% 8.2%

Theoretical uncertainties are subject to bin-to-bin correlations. We adopt a
procedure that produces a correlation coefficient $\rho_{ab}$ directly from
the individual scale variations:

$\rho_{ab}=\frac{\sum_{i}(\sigma_{a,i}-\overline{\sigma}_{a})(\sigma_{b,i}-\overline{\sigma}_{b})}{\sqrt{\sum_{i}(\sigma_{a,i}-\overline{\sigma}_{a})^{2}\sum_{i}(\sigma_{b,i}-\overline{\sigma}_{b})^{2}}},$
(7)

where $\sigma_{a(b),i}$ is the cross section in bin $a$ ($b$) of the $i$th
scale variation, $\overline{\sigma}_{a(b)}$ is the mean cross section in bin
$a$ ($b$), and $\rho_{ab}$ is the resulting correlation coefficient between
bin $a$ and $b$. The correlation structure is characterized by strong
correlations among bins at moderate $\pt^{\PH}$ ($15\leq\pt^{\PH}\leq
600\GeV$). Only the bins with $\pt^{\PH}<15$ and $\pt^{\PH}>600$are anti-
correlated with the bins at moderate $\pt^{\PH}$.

##  0.7 Results

###  0.7.1 Total cross section and
$\mathcal{B}_{\cPgg\cPgg}/\mathcal{B}_{\cPZ\cPZ}$

The total cross section for Higgs boson production, based on a combination of
the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels, is measured to be
$61.1\pm 6.0\stat\pm 3.7\syst$pb, obtained by applying the treatment described
in Section 4 to the inclusive cross section (with a single bin, both at
generator and at reconstruction level). The measured total cross sections from
the individual channels are $64.0\pm 9.6$pbfor $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $58.2\pm
9.8$pbfor $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$; the combination improves the precision by 27% with
respect to the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel individually. The likelihood scans
for the individual decay channels and their combination are shown in Fig. 1
(left). The combination result agrees with the SM value of $55.6\pm 2.5$pb
[57].

A measurement of the branching fraction for one decay channel is degenerate
with a measurement of the total cross section. However, the ratio of branching
fractions for two decay channels can be measured while profiling the total
cross section. The ratio of the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$
branching fractions, $\mathcal{B}_{\cPgg\cPgg}/\mathcal{B}_{\cPZ\cPZ}$, is
measured to be $0.092\pm 0.018\stat\pm 0.010\syst$. This is in agreement with
the SM prediction of $0.086\pm 0.002$ [57]. The likelihood scan for
$\mathcal{B}_{\cPgg\cPgg}/\mathcal{B}_{\cPZ\cPZ}$ is shown in Fig. 1 (right).

Figure 1:  Scan of the total cross section $\sigma_{\text{tot}}$ (left) and of
the ratio of branching fractions
$\mathcal{B}_{\cPgg\cPgg}/\mathcal{B}_{\cPZ\cPZ}$ (right), based on a
combination of the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ analyses. The
markers indicate the one standard deviation confidence interval. CYRM-2017-002
refers to Ref. [57].

###  0.7.2 Combinations of differential observables

The unfolded differential cross sections for the observables $\pt^{\PH}$,
$N_{\text{jets}}$, $\abs{y_{\PH}}$, and $\pt^{\text{jet}}$ are shown in Figs.
2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Figure 2 (right) shows the differential cross
section of $\pt^{\PH}$ for Higgs boson production via gluon fusion; for this
result, the non-gluon-fusion production modes are considered to be background,
constrained to the SM predictions with their respective uncertainties. The
numerical values for the spectra in Figs. 2–5 are given in Appendix .9 and the
corresponding bin-to-bin correlation matrices are given in Appendix .10. For
the observables $\pt^{\PH}$, $N_{\text{jets}}$, and $\pt^{\text{jet}}$, the
rightmost bin is an overflow bin, which is normalized by the bin width of the
second-to-rightmost bin. Overall no significant deviations from the SM
predictions are observed. For the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum, the dominant source of
uncertainty is the statistical one; in particular, the systematic uncertainty
is about half the statistical uncertainty in the rightmost bin, and much
smaller than the statistical uncertainty in all other bins. The total
uncertainty in the combination per bin varies between 30 and 40%. Compared to
the measurement in the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel alone, the decrease in
uncertainty achieved by the combination is most notable in the low-$\pt$
region. The contribution of the $\PH\to\bbbar$ channel to the overall
precision of the combination is most significant in the last $\pt^{\PH}$ bin.

Figure 2:  Measurement of the total differential cross section (left) and the
differential cross section of gluon fusion (right) as a function of
$\pt^{\PH}$. The combined spectrum is shown as black points with error bars
indicating a 1 standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the
uncertainty is shown by a blue band. The spectra for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$,
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$ channels are shown in red, blue, and
green, respectively. The dotted horizontal lines in the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$
channel indicate the coarser binning of this measurement. The rightmost bins
of the distributions are overflow bins; the normalizations of the cross
sections in these bins are indicated in the figure. CYRM-2017-002 refers to
Ref. [57].  Figure 3:  Measurement of the differential cross section as a
function of $N_{\text{jets}}$. The combined spectrum is shown as black points
with error bars indicating a 1 standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic
component of the uncertainty is shown by a blue band. The spectra for the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels are shown in red and blue,
respectively. The dotted horizontal lines in the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channel
indicate the coarser binning of this measurement. CYRM-2017-002 refers to Ref.
[57].  Figure 4:  Measurement of the differential cross section as a function
of $\abs{y_{\PH}}$. The combined spectrum is shown as black points with error
bars indicating a 1 standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component
of the uncertainty is shown by a blue band. The spectra for the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels are shown in red and blue,
respectively. CYRM-2017-002 refers to Ref. [57].  Figure 5:  Measurement of
the differential cross section as a function of $\pt^{\text{jet}}$. The
combined spectrum is shown as black points with error bars indicating a 1
standard deviation uncertainty. The systematic component of the uncertainty is
shown by a blue band. The spectra for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels are shown in red and blue, respectively. The dotted
horizontal lines in the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channel indicate the coarser binning
of this measurement. The rightmost bin of the distribution is an overflow bin;
the normalization of the cross section in that bin is indicated in the figure.
CYRM-2017-002 refers to Ref. [57].

###  0.7.3 Fits of Higgs boson coupling modifiers: $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ vs.
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$

Figure 6 (left) shows the one and two standard deviation contours of the fits
of the $\kappa_{\cPqb}/\kappa_{\cPqc}$ parametrization from Ref. [12] to data,
assuming the branching fractions are dependent on the Higgs boson couplings, ,
$\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{B}(\kappa_{\cPqb},\kappa_{\cPqc})$, and that there are
no beyond-the-SM contributions. The substructure on the combined scan shows a
ring shape around the origin, in agreement with the SM prediction within one
standard deviation.

In order to assess the constraint obtained only from the knowledge of the
$\pt^{\PH}$ distribution, the total width and the overall normalization are
profiled in the fit. This is effectively accomplished by implementing the
branching fractions for the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels
as nuisance parameters with no prior constraint, as free parameters. The
result of this fit is shown in Fig. 6 (right). As expected, the range of
allowed values of $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ is much wider than in
the case of coupling-dependent branching fractions.

Figure 6:  Simultaneous fit to data for $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqc}$,
assuming a coupling dependence of the branching fractions (left) and the
branching fractions implemented as nuisance parameters with no prior
constraint (right). The one standard deviation contour is drawn for the
combination ($\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$), the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$
channel, and the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channel in black, red, and blue,
respectively. For the combination the two standard deviation contour is drawn
as a black dashed line, and the shading indicates the negative log-likelihood,
with the scale shown on the right hand side of the plots.

Confidence intervals can be set on $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ by
profiling one coupling and scanning over the other. The results of these
single-coupling scans are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The observed (expected)
limits at 95% CL in the one-dimensional scans are:

$\displaystyle-1.1<\kappa_{\cPqb}<1.1$
$\displaystyle(-1.3<\kappa_{\cPqb}<1.3),$ (8)
$\displaystyle-4.9<\kappa_{\cPqc}<4.8$
$\displaystyle(-6.1<\kappa_{\cPqc}<6.0),$

in the case of branching fractions that depend on $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$, and

$\displaystyle-8.5<\kappa_{\cPqb}<18$ $\displaystyle(-8.8<\kappa_{\cPqb}<15),$
(9) $\displaystyle-33<\kappa_{\cPqc}<38$
$\displaystyle(-31<\kappa_{\cPqc}<36),$

in the case of the branching fractions implemented as nuisance parameters with
no prior constraint. For the coupling-dependent branching fractions, the
results are shaped predominantly by the constraints from the total width
rather than by distortions of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum. If the branching
fractions are fixed to their SM expectations, the one-dimensional scans yield
the following expected limits at 95% CL:

$\displaystyle-3.5<$ $\displaystyle\kappa_{\cPqb}<5.1,$ (10)
$\displaystyle-13<$ $\displaystyle\kappa_{\cPqc}<15.$

These intervals are comparable to those in Ref. [12], where
$\kappa_{\cPqc}\in[-16,18]$ at 95% CL, noting that the results here are based
on a larger data set. The intervals obtained are competitive with the
intervals from other direct search channels summarized in Section 0.1.

Figure 7:  Likelihood scan of $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ while profiling
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$ (left), and of $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ while profiling
$\kappa_{\cPqb}$ (right). The filled markers indicate the limits at 95% CL.
The branching fractions are considered dependent on the values of the
couplings.

Figure 8:  Likelihood scan of $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ while profiling
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$ (left), and of $\kappa_{\cPqc}$ while profiling
$\kappa_{\cPqb}$ (right). The filled markers indicate the limits at 95% CL.
The branching fractions are implemented as nuisance parameters with no prior
constraint.

###  0.7.4 Fits of Higgs boson coupling modifiers: $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ vs.
$c_{\Pg}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ vs. $\kappa_{\cPqb}$

The fits are repeated in a way analogous to that of Section 0.7.3 but with
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$, $c_{\Pg}$, and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$, the coefficients of the
dimension-6 operators added to the SM Lagrangian, as the parameters of the
fit, using the parametrization obtained from Refs. [30, 31]. The combined log-
likelihood scan for $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ vs. $c_{\Pg}$, assuming branching
fractions that depend on the couplings, is shown in Fig. 9 (left). The
normalization of the spectrum is, by construction, equal to the SM
normalization for the set of coefficients satisfying
$12c_{\Pg}+\kappa_{\cPqt}\simeq 1$. The shape of the parametrized $\pt^{\PH}$
spectrum $s$ is calculated by normalizing the differential cross section to
$1$:

$s_{i}(\kappa_{\cPqt},c_{\Pg})=\frac{\sigma_{i}(\kappa_{\cPqt},c_{\Pg})}{\sum_{j}\sigma_{j}(\kappa_{\cPqt},c_{\Pg})},$
(11)

where $\sigma_{i}$ is the parametrization in bin $i$. Inserting the expected
parabolic dependence of $\sigma_{i}(\kappa_{\cPqt},c_{\Pg})$ reveals that the
shape of the parametrization for $\kappa_{\cPqt}$/$c_{\Pg}$ variations becomes
a function of the ratio of the two couplings,
$s_{i}({c_{\Pg}}/{\kappa_{\cPqt}})$. Thus the dependence of the likelihood on
the radial distance $\sqrt{\smash[b]{\kappa_{\cPqt}^{2}+c_{\Pg}^{2}}}$ stems
from constraints on the overall normalization, whereas the dependence on the
slope ${c_{\Pg}}/{\kappa_{\cPqt}}$ stems from constraints on the shape of the
distribution. The dependence of the likelihood on the slope becomes apparent
in Fig. 9 (right), where the branching fractions are implemented as nuisance
parameters with no prior constraint in the fit. Except at small values of the
couplings, the constraint on the couplings comes from their ratio. The two
symmetric sets of contours are due to a symmetry of the parametrization under
$(\kappa_{\cPqt},\,c_{\Pg})\,\to\,(-\kappa_{\cPqt},\,-c_{\Pg})$. The
constraint from the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel individually is here slightly
stronger than the combination; this effect, not observed in expected fits,
stems from opposite deviations in the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$
$\pt^{\PH}$ spectra that cancel out in the combination.

Figure 9:  Simultaneous fit to data for $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and $c_{\Pg}$,
assuming a coupling dependence of the branching fractions (left) and the
branching fractions implemented as nuisance parameters with no prior
constraint (right). The one standard deviation contour is drawn for the
combination ($\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$, $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$), the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel, and the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channel in black, red,
and blue, respectively. For the combination the two standard deviation contour
is drawn as a black dashed line, and the shading indicates the negative log-
likelihood, with the scale shown on the right hand side of the plots.

Figure 10 (left) shows the combined log-likelihood scan as a function of
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$, with branching fractions scaling
appropriately with the coupling modifiers and Fig. 10 (right) with the
branching fractions implemented as nuisance parameters with no prior
constraint. As the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ branching fraction depends linearly on
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$, the constraints on the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel and the
combination in Fig. 10 (left) are not symmetric with respect to the
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$ axis. For the branching fractions implemented as nuisance
parameters with no prior constraint, the parametrization is symmetric under
$(\kappa_{\cPqt},\,\kappa_{\cPqb})\,\to\,(-\kappa_{\cPqt},\,-\kappa_{\cPqb})$,
which explains the observed symmetry in Fig. 10 (right).

Figure 10:  Simultaneous fit to data for $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and
$\kappa_{\cPqb}$, assuming a coupling dependence of the branching fractions
(left) and the branching fractions implemented as nuisance parameters with no
prior constraint (right). The one standard deviation contour is drawn for the
combination ($\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$, $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$), the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ channel, and the $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channel in black, red,
and blue, respectively. For the combination the two standard deviation contour
is drawn as a black dashed line, and the shading indicates the negative log-
likelihood, with the scale shown on the right hand side of the plots.

##  0.8 Summary

A combination of differential cross sections for the Higgs boson transverse
momentum $\pt^{\PH}$, the number of jets, the rapidity of the Higgs boson, and
the $\pt$ of the leading jet has been presented, using proton-proton collision
data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$with the CMS detector, corresponding to an
integrated luminosity of $35.9$. The spectra obtained are based on data from
the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$, $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$, and $\PH\to\bbbar$ decay channels.
The precision of the combined measurement of the differential cross section of
$\pt^{\PH}$ is improved by about 15% with respect to the $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$
channel alone. The improvement is larger in the low-$\pt^{\PH}$ region than in
the high-$\pt^{\PH}$ tails. No significant deviations from the standard model
are observed in any differential distribution. Additionally, the total cross
section for Higgs boson production based on a combination of the
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ and $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ channels is measured to be $61.1\pm
6.0\stat\pm 3.7\syst$pb.

The spectra obtained are interpreted in the $\kappa$-framework [32], in which
simultaneous variations of $\kappa_{\cPqb}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqc}$,
$\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and $\kappa_{\cPqb}$, and $\kappa_{\cPqt}$ and the anomalous
direct coupling to the gluon field $c_{\Pg}$ are fitted to the $\pt^{\PH}$
spectra. The limits obtained for the individual couplings are
$-1.1<\kappa_{\cPqb}<1.1$ and $-4.9<\kappa_{\cPqc}<4.8$ at 95% confidence
level, assuming the branching fractions scale with the Higgs boson couplings
following the standard model prediction. For the charm coupling
$\kappa_{\cPqc}$ in particular, these bounds are comparable with those
obtained from direct searches with charm quarks in the final state.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Fady Bishara, Ulrich Haisch, Pier Francesco Monni, Emanuele Re,
Massimiliano Grazzini, Agnieszka Ilnicka, Michael Spira, and Marius Wiesemann
for guidance regarding their predictions of the Higgs boson transverse
momentum spectra. We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator
departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical
and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their
contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully
acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing
Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to
our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the
construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the
following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium);
CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS,
MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of
Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and
HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM
(Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC
(Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom,
RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST
(Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK
(Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the
European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440
(European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office;
the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans
l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en
Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the
“Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of
Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület
(“Momentum”) Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the
NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, and 125105 (Hungary);
the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS
programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European
Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland),
contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543,
2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406;
the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the
Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by
EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral
Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its
2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation,
contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).

## References

  * [1] P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508.
  * [2] F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321.
  * [3] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585.
  * [4] ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214.
  * [5] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,  Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235.
  * [6] CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 081, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571.
  * [7] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 045, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266.
  * [8] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589.
  * [9] CMS Collaboration, “Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV”, (2018). arXiv:1809.10733. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C.
  * [10] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, “Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)”,  Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8.
  * [11] E. Witten, “Dynamical breaking of supersymmetry”,  Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513, 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7.
  * [12] F. Bishara, U. Haisch, P. F. Monni, and E. Re, “Constraining light-quark Yukawa couplings from Higgs distributions”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 121801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121801, arXiv:1606.09253.
  * [13] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the total and differential Higgs boson production cross sections combining the $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ and $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{ZZ}\rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channels at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 091801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.091801, arXiv:1504.05833.
  * [14] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs and Z boson decays to J/$\psi\gamma$ and $\Upsilon(nS)\gamma$ with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 121801, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.121801, arXiv:1501.03276.
  * [15] M. König and M. Neubert, “Exclusive radiative Higgs decays as probes of light-quark Yukawa couplings”,  JHEP 08 (2015) 012, 10.1007/JHEP08(2015)012, arXiv:1505.03870.
  * [16] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for exclusive Higgs and $Z$ boson decays into $J/\psi\gamma$ , $\psi(2S)\gamma$, and $\Upsilon(nS)\gamma$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 134, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.024, arXiv:1807.00802.
  * [17] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the decay of the Higgs boson to charm quarks with the ATLAS experiment”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 211802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.211802, arXiv:1802.04329.
  * [18] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with ATLAS”,  JHEP 09 (2014) 112, 10.1007/JHEP09(2014)112, arXiv:1407.4222.
  * [19] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 13, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3853-3, arXiv:1508.07819.
  * [20] ATLAS Collaboration, “Fiducial and differential cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the four-lepton decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Lett. B 738 (2014) 234, 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.09.054, arXiv:1408.3226.
  * [21] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential and integrated fiducial cross sections for Higgs boson production in the four-lepton decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 and 8 TeV”,  JHEP 04 (2016) 005, 10.1007/JHEP04(2016)005, arXiv:1512.08377.
  * [22] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of fiducial differential cross sections of gluon-fusion production of Higgs bosons decaying to $\mathrm{WW}^{*}\rightarrow e\nu\mu\nu$ with the ATLAS detector at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV”,  JHEP 08 (2016) 104, 10.1007/JHEP08(2016)104, arXiv:1604.02997.
  * [23] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the transverse momentum spectrum of the Higgs boson produced in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV using $\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{WW}$ decays”,  JHEP 03 (2017) 032, 10.1007/JHEP03(2017)032, arXiv:1606.01522.
  * [24] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel with 36 fb-1 of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 052005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.052005, arXiv:1802.04146.
  * [25] 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, 10.1007/JHEP01(2019)183, arXiv:1807.03825.
  * [26] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections in the $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{ZZ}^{*}\rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,  JHEP 10 (2017) 132, 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)132, arXiv:1708.02810.
  * [27] CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV”,  JHEP 11 (2017) 047, 10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047, arXiv:1706.09936.
  * [28] 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”,  Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 114, 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.019, arXiv:1805.10197.
  * [29] CMS Collaboration, “Inclusive search for a highly boosted Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 071802, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.071802, arXiv:1709.05543.
  * [30] M. Grazzini, A. Ilnicka, M. Spira, and M. Wiesemann, “Effective field theory for Higgs properties parametrisation: The transverse momentum spectrum case”, in  Proceedings, 52nd Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions: La Thuile, Italy, March 25-April 1, 2017, p. 23.  2017\.  arXiv:1705.05143.
  * [31] 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, 10.1007/JHEP03(2017)115, arXiv:1612.00283.
  * [32] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties”,  CERN (2013) 10.5170/CERN-2013-004, arXiv:1307.1347.
  * [33] A. Banfi, P. F. Monni, and G. Zanderighi, “Quark masses in Higgs production with a jet veto”,  JHEP 01 (2014) 097, 10.1007/JHEP01(2014)097, arXiv:1308.4634.
  * [34] G. Bozzi, S. Catani, D. de Florian, and M. Grazzini, “The $q_{\text{T}}$ spectrum of the Higgs boson at the LHC in QCD perturbation theory”,  Phys. Lett. B 564 (2003) 65, 10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00656-7, arXiv:hep-ph/0302104.
  * [35] T. Becher and M. Neubert, “Drell-Yan production at small $q_{\text{T}}$, transverse parton distributions and the collinear anomaly”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1665, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1665-7, arXiv:1007.4005.
  * [36] P. F. Monni, E. Re, and P. Torrielli, “Higgs transverse-momentum resummation in direct space”,  Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 242001, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.242001, arXiv:1604.02191.
  * [37] CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,  JINST 3 (2008) S08004, 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004.
  * [38] 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, 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301.
  * [39] T. Sjöstrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159, 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, arXiv:1410.3012.
  * [40] P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630.
  * [41] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”,  JHEP 12 (2012) 061, 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215.
  * [42] K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi, “MINLO: Multi-scale improved NLO”,  JHEP 10 (2012) 155, 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)155, arXiv:1206.3572.
  * [43] A. Kardos, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, “Three-jet production in POWHEG”,  JHEP 04 (2014) 043, 10.1007/JHEP04(2014)043, arXiv:1402.4001.
  * [44] NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,  JHEP 04 (2015) 040, 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849.
  * [45] CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,  JINST 12 (2017) P10003, 10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965.
  * [46] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-$\kt$ jet clustering algorithm”,  JHEP 04 (2008) 063, 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189.
  * [47] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”,  JHEP 09 (2013) 029, 10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029, arXiv:1307.0007.
  * [48] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,  JHEP 05 (2014) 146, 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146, arXiv:1402.2657.
  * [49] J. Dolen et al., “Thinking outside the ROCs: Designing decorrelated taggers (DDT) for jet substructure”,  JHEP 05 (2016) 156, 10.1007/JHEP05(2016)156, arXiv:1603.00027.
  * [50] I. Moult, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, “New angles on energy correlation functions”,  JHEP 12 (2016) 153, 10.1007/JHEP12(2016)153, arXiv:1609.07483.
  * [51] A. J. Larkoski, G. P. Salam, and J. Thaler, “Energy correlation functions for jet substructure”,  JHEP 06 (2013) 108, 10.1007/JHEP06(2013)108, arXiv:1305.0007.
  * [52] J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, “Identifying boosted objects with N-subjettiness”,  JHEP 03 (2011) 015, 10.1007/JHEP03(2011)015, arXiv:1011.2268.
  * [53] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,  JINST 13 (2018) P05011, 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158.
  * [54] P. C. Hansen, “The L-curve and its use in the numerical treatment of inverse problems”, in  Computational Inverse Problems in Electrocardiology, p. 119.  Southampton: WIT Press, 2001.
  * [55] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,  Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0, arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z].
  * [56] The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011.
  * [57] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”,  CERN (2016) 10.23731/CYRM-2017-002, arXiv:1610.07922.

##  .9 Tables for the differential cross section measurements

Tables .9–.9 show the measured differential cross sections for the considered
observables.

Differential cross sections (pb/) for the observable $\pt^{\PH}$.  $\pt^{\PH}$
() 0–15 15–30 30–45 45–80 80–120 120–200 200–350 350–600 $>$600
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ $1.0\,{}^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $1\,{}^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$
$0.5\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $0.3\,{}^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $0.1\,{}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$
$0.03\,{}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $0.01\,{}^{+2.8\times 10^{-3}}_{-2.5\times
10^{-3}}$ $-3.4\times 10^{-5}\,{}^{+3.8\times 10^{-4}}_{-3.1\times 10^{-4}}$
$-1.9\times 10^{-4}\,{}^{+2.4\times 10^{-4}}_{-2.4\times 10^{-4}}$
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ $0.7\,{}^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $1\,{}^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$
$0.4\,{}^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ $0.08\,{}^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ $3.3\times
10^{-4}\,{}^{+2.6\times 10^{-3}}_{-2.6\times 10^{-3}}$ $\PH\to\bbbar$ None
$9.6\times 10^{-4}\,{}^{+1.2\times 10^{-3}}_{-1.2\times 10^{-3}}$ $1.1\times
10^{-4}\,{}^{+1.2\times 10^{-4}}_{-1.1\times 10^{-4}}$ Comb.
$0.8\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $1\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ $0.6\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$
$0.3\,{}^{+0.1}_{-0.09}$ $0.1\,{}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ $0.03\,{}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$
$0.01\,{}^{+2.6\times 10^{-3}}_{-2.4\times 10^{-3}}$ $-2.8\times
10^{-6}\,{}^{+3.7\times 10^{-4}}_{-2.8\times 10^{-4}}$ $5.8\times
10^{-5}\,{}^{+1.0\times 10^{-4}}_{-1.0\times 10^{-4}}$

Differential cross sections of gluon fusion ($\Pg\Pg\PH$) (pb/GeV) for the
observable $\pt^{\PH}$, with non-$\Pg\Pg\PH$ production modes fixed to their
SM prediction.  $\pt^{\PH}$ () 0–15 15–30 30–45 45–80 80–120 120–200 200–350
350–600 $>$600 Comb. $0.8\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $1\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$
$0.5\,{}^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ $0.2\,{}^{+0.1}_{-0.09}$ $0.1\,{}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$
$0.02\,{}^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $8.3\times 10^{-3}\,{}^{+2.6\times
10^{-3}}_{-2.4\times 10^{-3}}$ $-1.6\times 10^{-4}\,{}^{+3.4\times
10^{-4}}_{-2.6\times 10^{-4}}$ $3.5\times 10^{-5}\,{}^{+5.8\times
10^{-5}}_{-5.7\times 10^{-5}}$

Differential cross sections (pb) for the observable $N_{\text{jets}}$.
$N_{\text{jets}}$ 0 1 2 3 $\geq$4 $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ $50\,{}^{+8.5}_{-8.1}$
$14\,{}^{+5.1}_{-4.9}$ $4.8\times 10^{-1}\,{}^{+2.7}_{-2.7}$
$3.1\,{}^{+2.0}_{-2.0}$ $1.3\,{}^{+8.8\times 10^{-1}}_{-9.3\times 10^{-1}}$
$\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ $41\,{}^{+9.1}_{-8.0}$ $8.7\,{}^{+5.2}_{-4.3}$
$6.9\,{}^{+3.7}_{-3.0}$ $1.2\,{}^{+2.1}_{-2.1}$ Combination
$47\,{}^{+6.2}_{-6.4}$ $11\,{}^{+3.7}_{-3.4}$ $3.5\,{}^{+1.9}_{-1.7}$
$1.8\,{}^{+1.7}_{-1.5}$ $1.2\,{}^{+8.3\times 10^{-1}}_{-8.8\times 10^{-1}}$

Differential cross sections (pb) for the observable $\abs{y_{\PH}}$.
$\abs{y_{\PH}}$ 0–0.15 0.15–0.3 0.3–0.6 0.6–0.9 0.9–1.2 1.2–2.5
$\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$ $42\,{}^{+11}_{-11}$ $39\,{}^{+12}_{-11}$
$31\,{}^{+9.0}_{-7.5}$ $28\,{}^{+9.1}_{-8.7}$ $24\,{}^{+12}_{-10}$
$18\,{}^{+7.4}_{-7.2}$ $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$ $39\,{}^{+17}_{-14}$
$35\,{}^{+18}_{-14}$ $34\,{}^{+11}_{-9.8}$ $45\,{}^{+13}_{-11}$
$13\,{}^{+8.9}_{-6.8}$ $13\,{}^{+6.7}_{-5.4}$ Combination
$41\,{}^{+9.1}_{-8.9}$ $38\,{}^{+9.7}_{-9.2}$ $32\,{}^{+7.0}_{-6.0}$
$35\,{}^{+7.1}_{-6.6}$ $17\,{}^{+7.4}_{-6.5}$ $15\,{}^{+5.1}_{-4.7}$

Differential cross sections (pb/GeV) for the observable $\pt^{\text{jet}}$.
$\pt^{\text{jet}}$ () 30–55 55–95 95–120 120–200 $>$200 $\PH\to\cPgg\cPgg$
$1.6\times 10^{-1}\,{}^{+2.0\times 10^{-1}}_{-2.1\times 10^{-1}}$ $2.0\times
10^{-1}\,{}^{+9.2\times 10^{-2}}_{-9.3\times 10^{-2}}$ $1.3\times
10^{-1}\,{}^{+9.5\times 10^{-2}}_{-9.2\times 10^{-2}}$ $1.5\times
10^{-5}\,{}^{+1.8\times 10^{-2}}_{-1.7\times 10^{-2}}$ $2.9\times
10^{-2}\,{}^{+9.1\times 10^{-3}}_{-9.2\times 10^{-3}}$ $\PH\to\cPZ\cPZ$
$4.8\times 10^{-1}\,{}^{+2.4\times 10^{-1}}_{-2.0\times 10^{-1}}$ $7.7\times
10^{-2}\,{}^{+8.8\times 10^{-2}}_{-6.9\times 10^{-2}}$ $8.0\times
10^{-2}\,{}^{+5.9\times 10^{-2}}_{-4.4\times 10^{-2}}$ Combination $3.2\times
10^{-1}\,{}^{+1.4\times 10^{-1}}_{-1.3\times 10^{-1}}$ $1.3\times
10^{-1}\,{}^{+7.7\times 10^{-2}}_{-6.1\times 10^{-2}}$ $1.1\times
10^{-1}\,{}^{+8.4\times 10^{-2}}_{-8.1\times 10^{-2}}$ $-4.2\times
10^{-3}\,{}^{+1.7\times 10^{-2}}_{-1.6\times 10^{-2}}$ $2.7\times
10^{-2}\,{}^{+8.7\times 10^{-3}}_{-8.9\times 10^{-3}}$

##  .10 Correlation matrices for the combinations of differential observables

Figs. .10.1–.10.4 show the correlation matrices for the considered
observables.

10.1.Figure:  Bin-to-bin correlation matrix of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum (left)
and of the $\pt^{\PH}$ spectrum of gluon fusion ($\Pg\Pg\PH$), where the
non-$\Pg\Pg\PH$ contributions are fixed to the SM expectation (right).
10.2.Figure:  Bin-to-bin correlation matrix of the $N_{\text{jets}}$ spectrum.
10.3.Figure:  Bin-to-bin correlation matrix of the $\abs{y_{\PH}}$ spectrum.
10.4.Figure:  Bin-to-bin correlation matrix of the $\pt^{\text{jet}}$
spectrum.

##  .11 The CMS Collaboration

Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
A.M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Wien, Austria
W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, M. Dragicevic,
J. Erö, A. Escalante Del Valle, M. Flechl, R. Frühwirth1, V.M. Ghete, J.
Hrubec, M. Jeitler1, N. Krammer, I. Krätschmer, D. Liko, T. Madlener, I.
Mikulec, N. Rad, H. Rohringer, J. Schieck1, R. Schöfbeck, M. Spanring, D.
Spitzbart, A. Taurok, W. Waltenberger, J. Wittmann, C.-E. Wulz1, M. Zarucki
Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus
V. Chekhovsky, V. Mossolov, J. Suarez Gonzalez Universiteit Antwerpen,
Antwerpen, Belgium
E.A. De Wolf, D. Di Croce, X. Janssen, J. Lauwers, M. Pieters, H. Van
Haevermaet, P. Van Mechelen, N. Van Remortel Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Brussel, Belgium
S. Abu Zeid, F. Blekman, J. D’Hondt, J. De Clercq, K. Deroover, G. Flouris, D.
Lontkovskyi, S. Lowette, I. Marchesini, S. Moortgat, L. Moreels, Q. Python, K.
Skovpen, S. Tavernier, W. Van Doninck, P. Van Mulders, I. Van Parijs
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
D. Beghin, B. Bilin, H. Brun, B. Clerbaux, G. De Lentdecker, H. Delannoy, B.
Dorney, G. Fasanella, L. Favart, R. Goldouzian, A. Grebenyuk, A.K. Kalsi, T.
Lenzi, J. Luetic, N. Postiau, E. Starling, L. Thomas, C. Vander Velde, P.
Vanlaer, D. Vannerom, Q. Wang Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
T. Cornelis, D. Dobur, A. Fagot, M. Gul, I. Khvastunov2, D. Poyraz, C. Roskas,
D. Trocino, M. Tytgat, W. Verbeke, B. Vermassen, M. Vit, N. Zaganidis
Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
H. Bakhshiansohi, O. Bondu, S. Brochet, G. Bruno, C. Caputo, P. David, C.
Delaere, M. Delcourt, A. Giammanco, G. Krintiras, V. Lemaitre, A. Magitteri,
K. Piotrzkowski, A. Saggio, M. Vidal Marono, S. Wertz, J. Zobec Centro
Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F.L. Alves, G.A. Alves, M. Correa Martins Junior, G. Correia Silva, C. Hensel,
A. Moraes, M.E. Pol, P. Rebello Teles Universidade do Estado do Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Belchior Batista Das Chagas, W. Carvalho, J. Chinellato3, E. Coelho, E.M.
Da Costa, G.G. Da Silveira4, D. De Jesus Damiao, C. De Oliveira Martins, S.
Fonseca De Souza, H. Malbouisson, D. Matos Figueiredo, M. Melo De Almeida, C.
Mora Herrera, L. Mundim, H. Nogima, W.L. Prado Da Silva, L.J. Sanchez Rosas,
A. Santoro, A. Sznajder, M. Thiel, E.J. Tonelli Manganote3, F. Torres Da Silva
De Araujo, A. Vilela Pereira Universidade Estadual Paulista a, Universidade
Federal do ABC b, São Paulo, Brazil
S. Ahujaa, C.A. Bernardesa, L. Calligarisa, T.R. Fernandez Perez Tomeia, E.M.
Gregoresb, P.G. Mercadanteb, S.F. Novaesa, SandraS. Padulaa Institute for
Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia,
Bulgaria
A. Aleksandrov, R. Hadjiiska, P. Iaydjiev, A. Marinov, M. Misheva, M. Rodozov,
M. Shopova, G. Sultanov University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria
A. Dimitrov, L. Litov, B. Pavlov, P. Petkov Beihang University, Beijing, China
W. Fang5, X. Gao5, L. Yuan Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China
M. Ahmad, J.G. Bian, G.M. Chen, H.S. Chen, M. Chen, Y. Chen, C.H. Jiang, D.
Leggat, H. Liao, Z. Liu, F. Romeo, S.M. Shaheen6, A. Spiezia, J. Tao, Z. Wang,
E. Yazgan, H. Zhang, S. Zhang6, J. Zhao State Key Laboratory of Nuclear
Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Y. Ban, G. Chen, A. Levin, J. Li, L. Li, Q. Li, Y. Mao, S.J. Qian, D. Wang
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Y. Wang Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
C. Avila, A. Cabrera, C.A. Carrillo Montoya, L.F. Chaparro Sierra, C. Florez,
C.F. González Hernández, M.A. Segura Delgado University of Split, Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split,
Croatia
B. Courbon, N. Godinovic, D. Lelas, I. Puljak, T. Sculac University of Split,
Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia
Z. Antunovic, M. Kovac Institute Rudjer Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia
V. Brigljevic, D. Ferencek, K. Kadija, B. Mesic, A. Starodumov7, T. Susa
University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
M.W. Ather, A. Attikis, M. Kolosova, G. Mavromanolakis, J. Mousa, C. Nicolaou,
F. Ptochos, P.A. Razis, H. Rykaczewski Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic
M. Finger8, M. Finger Jr.8 Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito, Ecuador
E. Ayala Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
E. Carrera Jarrin Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt
H. Abdalla9, A.A. Abdelalim10,11, A. Mohamed11 National Institute of Chemical
Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia
S. Bhowmik, A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira, R.K. Dewanjee, K. Ehataht, M.
Kadastik, M. Raidal, C. Veelken Department of Physics, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
P. Eerola, H. Kirschenmann, J. Pekkanen, M. Voutilainen Helsinki Institute of
Physics, Helsinki, Finland
J. Havukainen, J.K. Heikkilä, T. Järvinen, V. Karimäki, R. Kinnunen, T.
Lampén, K. Lassila-Perini, S. Laurila, S. Lehti, T. Lindén, P. Luukka, T.
Mäenpää, H. Siikonen, E. Tuominen, J. Tuominiemi Lappeenranta University of
Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland
T. Tuuva IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
M. Besancon, F. Couderc, M. Dejardin, D. Denegri, J.L. Faure, F. Ferri, S.
Ganjour, A. Givernaud, P. Gras, G. Hamel de Monchenault, P. Jarry, C. Leloup,
E. Locci, J. Malcles, G. Negro, J. Rander, A. Rosowsky, M.Ö. Sahin, M. Titov
Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole polytechnique, CNRS/IN2P3, Université
Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
A. Abdulsalam12, C. Amendola, I. Antropov, F. Beaudette, P. Busson, C.
Charlot, R. Granier de Cassagnac, I. Kucher, A. Lobanov, J. Martin Blanco, C.
Martin Perez, M. Nguyen, C. Ochando, G. Ortona, P. Paganini, P. Pigard, J.
Rembser, R. Salerno, J.B. Sauvan, Y. Sirois, A.G. Stahl Leiton, A. Zabi, A.
Zghiche Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178, Strasbourg, France
J.-L. Agram13, J. Andrea, D. Bloch, J.-M. Brom, E.C. Chabert, V. Cherepanov,
C. Collard, E. Conte13, J.-C. Fontaine13, D. Gelé, U. Goerlach, M. Jansová,
A.-C. Le Bihan, N. Tonon, P. Van Hove Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National
de Physique Nucleaire et de Physique des Particules, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne,
France
S. Gadrat Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS-IN2P3,
Institut de Physique Nucléaire de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France
S. Beauceron, C. Bernet, G. Boudoul, N. Chanon, R. Chierici, D. Contardo, P.
Depasse, H. El Mamouni, J. Fay, L. Finco, S. Gascon, M. Gouzevitch, G.
Grenier, B. Ille, F. Lagarde, I.B. Laktineh, H. Lattaud, M. Lethuillier, L.
Mirabito, S. Perries, A. Popov14, V. Sordini, G. Touquet, M. Vander Donckt, S.
Viret Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia
A. Khvedelidze8 Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
Z. Tsamalaidze8 RWTH Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen,
Germany
C. Autermann, L. Feld, M.K. Kiesel, K. Klein, M. Lipinski, M. Preuten, M.P.
Rauch, C. Schomakers, J. Schulz, M. Teroerde, B. Wittmer RWTH Aachen
University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany
A. Albert, D. Duchardt, M. Erdmann, S. Erdweg, T. Esch, R. Fischer, S. Ghosh,
A. Güth, T. Hebbeker, C. Heidemann, K. Hoepfner, H. Keller, L. Mastrolorenzo,
M. Merschmeyer, A. Meyer, P. Millet, S. Mukherjee, T. Pook, M. Radziej, H.
Reithler, M. Rieger, A. Schmidt, D. Teyssier, S. Thüer RWTH Aachen University,
III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany
G. Flügge, O. Hlushchenko, T. Kress, T. Müller, A. Nehrkorn, A. Nowack, C.
Pistone, O. Pooth, D. Roy, H. Sert, A. Stahl15 Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany
M. Aldaya Martin, T. Arndt, C. Asawatangtrakuldee, I. Babounikau, K.
Beernaert, O. Behnke, U. Behrens, A. Bermúdez Martínez, D. Bertsche, A.A. Bin
Anuar, K. Borras16, V. Botta, A. Campbell, P. Connor, C. Contreras-Campana, V.
Danilov, A. De Wit, M.M. Defranchis, C. Diez Pardos, D. Domínguez Damiani, G.
Eckerlin, T. Eichhorn, A. Elwood, E. Eren, E. Gallo17, A. Geiser, J.M. Grados
Luyando, A. Grohsjean, M. Guthoff, M. Haranko, A. Harb, J. Hauk, H. Jung, M.
Kasemann, J. Keaveney, C. Kleinwort, J. Knolle, D. Krücker, W. Lange, A.
Lelek, T. Lenz, J. Leonard, K. Lipka, W. Lohmann18, R. Mankel, I.-A. Melzer-
Pellmann, A.B. Meyer, M. Meyer, M. Missiroli, G. Mittag, J. Mnich, V.
Myronenko, S.K. Pflitsch, D. Pitzl, A. Raspereza, M. Savitskyi, P. Saxena, P.
Schütze, C. Schwanenberger, R. Shevchenko, A. Singh, H. Tholen, O. Turkot, A.
Vagnerini, G.P. Van Onsem, R. Walsh, Y. Wen, K. Wichmann, C. Wissing, O.
Zenaiev University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
R. Aggleton, S. Bein, L. Benato, A. Benecke, V. Blobel, T. Dreyer, A.
Ebrahimi, E. Garutti, D. Gonzalez, P. Gunnellini, J. Haller, A. Hinzmann, A.
Karavdina, G. Kasieczka, R. Klanner, R. Kogler, N. Kovalchuk, S. Kurz, V.
Kutzner, J. Lange, D. Marconi, J. Multhaup, M. Niedziela, C.E.N. Niemeyer, D.
Nowatschin, A. Perieanu, A. Reimers, O. Rieger, C. Scharf, P. Schleper, S.
Schumann, J. Schwandt, J. Sonneveld, H. Stadie, G. Steinbrück, F.M. Stober, M.
Stöver, A. Vanhoefer, B. Vormwald, I. Zoi Karlsruher Institut fuer
Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
M. Akbiyik, C. Barth, M. Baselga, S. Baur, E. Butz, R. Caspart, T. Chwalek, F.
Colombo, W. De Boer, A. Dierlamm, K. El Morabit, N. Faltermann, B. Freund, M.
Giffels, M.A. Harrendorf, F. Hartmann15, S.M. Heindl, U. Husemann, I.
Katkov14, S. Kudella, S. Mitra, M.U. Mozer, Th. Müller, M. Musich, M. Plagge,
G. Quast, K. Rabbertz, M. Schröder, I. Shvetsov, H.J. Simonis, R. Ulrich, S.
Wayand, M. Weber, T. Weiler, C. Wöhrmann, R. Wolf Institute of Nuclear and
Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos, Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
G. Anagnostou, G. Daskalakis, T. Geralis, A. Kyriakis, D. Loukas, G. Paspalaki
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
G. Karathanasis, P. Kontaxakis, A. Panagiotou, I. Papavergou, N. Saoulidou, E.
Tziaferi, K. Vellidis National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece
K. Kousouris, I. Papakrivopoulos, G. Tsipolitis University of Ioánnina,
Ioánnina, Greece
I. Evangelou, C. Foudas, P. Gianneios, P. Katsoulis, P. Kokkas, S. Mallios, N.
Manthos, I. Papadopoulos, E. Paradas, J. Strologas, F.A. Triantis, D.
Tsitsonis MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
M. Bartók19, M. Csanad, N. Filipovic, P. Major, M.I. Nagy, G. Pasztor, O.
Surányi, G.I. Veres Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary
G. Bencze, C. Hajdu, D. Horvath20, Á. Hunyadi, F. Sikler, T.Á. Vámi, V.
Veszpremi, G. Vesztergombi${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$ Institute of Nuclear
Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
N. Beni, S. Czellar, J. Karancsi19, A. Makovec, J. Molnar, Z. Szillasi
Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
P. Raics, Z.L. Trocsanyi, B. Ujvari Indian Institute of Science (IISc),
Bangalore, India
S. Choudhury, J.R. Komaragiri, P.C. Tiwari National Institute of Science
Education and Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India
S. Bahinipati22, C. Kar, P. Mal, K. Mandal, A. Nayak23, D.K. Sahoo22, S.K.
Swain Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
S. Bansal, S.B. Beri, V. Bhatnagar, S. Chauhan, R. Chawla, N. Dhingra, R.
Gupta, A. Kaur, M. Kaur, S. Kaur, P. Kumari, M. Lohan, A. Mehta, K. Sandeep,
S. Sharma, J.B. Singh, A.K. Virdi, G. Walia University of Delhi, Delhi, India
A. Bhardwaj, B.C. Choudhary, R.B. Garg, M. Gola, S. Keshri, Ashok Kumar, S.
Malhotra, M. Naimuddin, P. Priyanka, K. Ranjan, Aashaq Shah, R. Sharma Saha
Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI, Kolkata, India
R. Bhardwaj24, M. Bharti24, R. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharya, U. Bhawandeep24,
D. Bhowmik, S. Dey, S. Dutt24, S. Dutta, S. Ghosh, K. Mondal, S. Nandan, A.
Purohit, P.K. Rout, A. Roy, S. Roy Chowdhury, G. Saha, S. Sarkar, M. Sharan,
B. Singh24, S. Thakur24 Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India
P.K. Behera Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India
R. Chudasama, D. Dutta, V. Jha, V. Kumar, P.K. Netrakanti, L.M. Pant, P.
Shukla Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-A, Mumbai, India
T. Aziz, M.A. Bhat, S. Dugad, G.B. Mohanty, N. Sur, B. Sutar, RavindraKumar
Verma Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India
S. Banerjee, S. Bhattacharya, S. Chatterjee, P. Das, M. Guchait, Sa. Jain, S.
Karmakar, S. Kumar, M. Maity25, G. Majumder, K. Mazumdar, N. Sahoo, T.
Sarkar25 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India
S. Chauhan, S. Dube, V. Hegde, A. Kapoor, K. Kothekar, S. Pandey, A. Rane, A.
Rastogi, S. Sharma Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM),
Tehran, Iran
S. Chenarani26, E. Eskandari Tadavani, S.M. Etesami26, M. Khakzad, M.
Mohammadi Najafabadi, M. Naseri, F. Rezaei Hosseinabadi, B. Safarzadeh27, M.
Zeinali University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Felcini, M. Grunewald INFN Sezione di Bari a, Università di Bari b,
Politecnico di Bari c, Bari, Italy
M. Abbresciaa,b, C. Calabriaa,b, A. Colaleoa, D. Creanzaa,c, L. Cristellaa,b,
N. De Filippisa,c, M. De Palmaa,b, A. Di Florioa,b, F. Erricoa,b, L. Fiorea,
A. Gelmia,b, G. Iasellia,c, M. Incea,b, S. Lezkia,b, G. Maggia,c, M. Maggia,
G. Minielloa,b, S. Mya,b, S. Nuzzoa,b, A. Pompilia,b, G. Pugliesea,c, R.
Radognaa, A. Ranieria, G. Selvaggia,b, A. Sharmaa, L. Silvestrisa, R.
Vendittia, P. Verwilligena, G. Zitoa INFN Sezione di Bologna a, Università di
Bologna b, Bologna, Italy
G. Abbiendia, C. Battilanaa,b, D. Bonacorsia,b, L. Borgonovia,b, S. Braibant-
Giacomellia,b, R. Campaninia,b, P. Capiluppia,b, A. Castroa,b, F.R. Cavalloa,
S.S. Chhibraa,b, C. Cioccaa, G. Codispotia,b, M. Cuffiania,b, G.M.
Dallavallea, F. Fabbria, A. Fanfania,b, E. Fontanesi, P. Giacomellia, C.
Grandia, L. Guiduccia,b, F. Iemmia,b, S. Lo Meoa, S. Marcellinia, G. Masettia,
A. Montanaria, F.L. Navarriaa,b, A. Perrottaa, F. Primaveraa,b,15, T.
Rovellia,b, G.P. Sirolia,b, N. Tosia INFN Sezione di Catania a, Università di
Catania b, Catania, Italy
S. Albergoa,b, A. Di Mattiaa, R. Potenzaa,b, A. Tricomia,b, C. Tuvea,b INFN
Sezione di Firenze a, Università di Firenze b, Firenze, Italy
G. Barbaglia, K. Chatterjeea,b, V. Ciullia,b, C. Civininia, R.
D’Alessandroa,b, E. Focardia,b, G. Latino, P. Lenzia,b, M. Meschinia, S.
Paolettia, L. Russoa,28, G. Sguazzonia, D. Stroma, L. Viliania INFN Laboratori
Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
L. Benussi, S. Bianco, F. Fabbri, D. Piccolo INFN Sezione di Genova a,
Università di Genova b, Genova, Italy
F. Ferroa, R. Mulargiaa,b, F. Raveraa,b, E. Robuttia, S. Tosia,b INFN Sezione
di Milano-Bicocca a, Università di Milano-Bicocca b, Milano, Italy
A. Benagliaa, A. Beschib, F. Brivioa,b, V. Cirioloa,b,15, S. Di Guidaa,d,15,
M.E. Dinardoa,b, S. Fiorendia,b, S. Gennaia, A. Ghezzia,b, P. Govonia,b, M.
Malbertia,b, S. Malvezzia, A. Massironia,b, D. Menascea, F. Monti, L. Moronia,
M. Paganonia,b, D. Pedrinia, S. Ragazzia,b, T. Tabarelli de Fatisa,b, D.
Zuoloa,b INFN Sezione di Napoli a, Università di Napoli ’Federico II’ b,
Napoli, Italy, Università della Basilicata c, Potenza, Italy, Università G.
Marconi d, Roma, Italy
S. Buontempoa, N. Cavalloa,c, A. De Iorioa,b, A. Di Crescenzoa,b, F.
Fabozzia,c, F. Fiengaa, G. Galatia, A.O.M. Iorioa,b, W.A. Khana, L. Listaa, S.
Meolaa,d,15, P. Paoluccia,15, C. Sciaccaa,b, E. Voevodinaa,b INFN Sezione di
Padova a, Università di Padova b, Padova, Italy, Università di Trento c,
Trento, Italy
P. Azzia, N. Bacchettaa, D. Biselloa,b, A. Bolettia,b, A. Bragagnolo, R.
Carlina,b, P. Checchiaa, M. Dall’Ossoa,b, P. De Castro Manzanoa, T. Dorigoa,
U. Dossellia, U. Gasparinia,b, A. Gozzelinoa, S.Y. Hoh, S. Lacapraraa, P.
Lujan, M. Margonia,b, A.T. Meneguzzoa,b, J. Pazzinia,b, N. Pozzobona,b, P.
Ronchesea,b, R. Rossina,b, F. Simonettoa,b, A. Tiko, E. Torassaa, M. Tosia,b,
M. Zanettia,b, P. Zottoa,b, G. Zumerlea,b INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università
di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
A. Braghieria, A. Magnania, P. Montagnaa,b, S.P. Rattia,b, V. Rea, M.
Ressegottia,b, C. Riccardia,b, P. Salvinia, I. Vaia,b, P. Vituloa,b INFN
Sezione di Perugia a, Università di Perugia b, Perugia, Italy
M. Biasinia,b, G.M. Bileia, C. Cecchia,b, D. Ciangottinia,b, L. Fanòa,b, P.
Laricciaa,b, R. Leonardia,b, E. Manonia, G. Mantovania,b, V. Mariania,b, M.
Menichellia, A. Rossia,b, A. Santocchiaa,b, D. Spigaa INFN Sezione di Pisa a,
Università di Pisa b, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa c, Pisa, Italy
K. Androsova, P. Azzurria, G. Bagliesia, L. Bianchinia, T. Boccalia, L.
Borrello, R. Castaldia, M.A. Cioccia,b, R. Dell’Orsoa, G. Fedia, F. Fioria,c,
L. Gianninia,c, A. Giassia, M.T. Grippoa, F. Ligabuea,c, E. Mancaa,c, G.
Mandorlia,c, A. Messineoa,b, F. Pallaa, A. Rizzia,b, G. Rolandi29, P.
Spagnoloa, R. Tenchinia, G. Tonellia,b, A. Venturia, P.G. Verdinia INFN
Sezione di Roma a, Sapienza Università di Roma b, Rome, Italy
L. Baronea,b, F. Cavallaria, M. Cipriania,b, D. Del Rea,b, E. Di Marcoa,b, M.
Diemoza, S. Gellia,b, E. Longoa,b, B. Marzocchia,b, P. Meridiania, G.
Organtinia,b, F. Pandolfia, R. Paramattia,b, F. Preiatoa,b, S. Rahatloua,b, C.
Rovellia, F. Santanastasioa,b INFN Sezione di Torino a, Università di Torino
b, Torino, Italy, Università del Piemonte Orientale c, Novara, Italy
N. Amapanea,b, R. Arcidiaconoa,c, S. Argiroa,b, M. Arneodoa,c, N. Bartosika,
R. Bellana,b, C. Biinoa, A. Cappatia,b, N. Cartigliaa, F. Cennaa,b, S.
Comettia, M. Costaa,b, R. Covarellia,b, N. Demariaa, B. Kiania,b, C.
Mariottia, S. Masellia, E. Migliorea,b, V. Monacoa,b, E. Monteila,b, M.
Montenoa, M.M. Obertinoa,b, L. Pachera,b, N. Pastronea, M. Pelliccionia, G.L.
Pinna Angionia,b, A. Romeroa,b, M. Ruspaa,c, R. Sacchia,b, R. Salvaticoa,b, K.
Shchelinaa,b, V. Solaa, A. Solanoa,b, D. Soldia,b, A. Staianoa INFN Sezione di
Trieste a, Università di Trieste b, Trieste, Italy
S. Belfortea, V. Candelisea,b, M. Casarsaa, F. Cossuttia, A. Da Rolda,b, G.
Della Riccaa,b, F. Vazzolera,b, A. Zanettia Kyungpook National University,
Daegu, Korea
D.H. Kim, G.N. Kim, M.S. Kim, J. Lee, S. Lee, S.W. Lee, C.S. Moon, Y.D. Oh,
S.I. Pak, S. Sekmen, D.C. Son, Y.C. Yang Chonnam National University,
Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Kwangju, Korea
H. Kim, D.H. Moon, G. Oh Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea
B. Francois, J. Goh30, T.J. Kim Korea University, Seoul, Korea
S. Cho, S. Choi, Y. Go, D. Gyun, S. Ha, B. Hong, Y. Jo, K. Lee, K.S. Lee, S.
Lee, J. Lim, S.K. Park, Y. Roh Sejong University, Seoul, Korea
H.S. Kim Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
J. Almond, J. Kim, J.S. Kim, H. Lee, K. Lee, K. Nam, S.B. Oh, B.C. Radburn-
Smith, S.h. Seo, U.K. Yang, H.D. Yoo, G.B. Yu University of Seoul, Seoul,
Korea
D. Jeon, H. Kim, J.H. Kim, J.S.H. Lee, I.C. Park Sungkyunkwan University,
Suwon, Korea
Y. Choi, C. Hwang, J. Lee, I. Yu Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania
V. Dudenas, A. Juodagalvis, J. Vaitkus National Centre for Particle Physics,
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
I. Ahmed, Z.A. Ibrahim, M.A.B. Md Ali31, F. Mohamad Idris32, W.A.T. Wan
Abdullah, M.N. Yusli, Z. Zolkapli Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico
J.F. Benitez, A. Castaneda Hernandez, J.A. Murillo Quijada Centro de
Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico
H. Castilla-Valdez, E. De La Cruz-Burelo, M.C. Duran-Osuna, I. Heredia-De La
Cruz33, R. Lopez-Fernandez, J. Mejia Guisao, R.I. Rabadan-Trejo, M. Ramirez-
Garcia, G. Ramirez-Sanchez, R. Reyes-Almanza, A. Sanchez-Hernandez Universidad
Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico
S. Carrillo Moreno, C. Oropeza Barrera, F. Vazquez Valencia Benemerita
Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico
J. Eysermans, I. Pedraza, H.A. Salazar Ibarguen, C. Uribe Estrada Universidad
Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
A. Morelos Pineda University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
D. Krofcheck University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
S. Bheesette, P.H. Butler National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
A. Ahmad, M. Ahmad, M.I. Asghar, Q. Hassan, H.R. Hoorani, A. Saddique, M.A.
Shah, M. Shoaib, M. Waqas National Centre for Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland
H. Bialkowska, M. Bluj, B. Boimska, T. Frueboes, M. Górski, M. Kazana, M.
Szleper, P. Traczyk, P. Zalewski Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of
Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
K. Bunkowski, A. Byszuk34, K. Doroba, A. Kalinowski, M. Konecki, J.
Krolikowski, M. Misiura, M. Olszewski, A. Pyskir, M. Walczak Laboratório de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal
M. Araujo, P. Bargassa, C. Beirão Da Cruz E Silva, A. Di Francesco, P.
Faccioli, B. Galinhas, M. Gallinaro, J. Hollar, N. Leonardo, J. Seixas, G.
Strong, O. Toldaiev, J. Varela Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna,
Russia
S. Afanasiev, P. Bunin, M. Gavrilenko, I. Golutvin, I. Gorbunov, A. Kamenev,
V. Karjavine, A. Lanev, A. Malakhov, V. Matveev35,36, P. Moisenz, V. Palichik,
V. Perelygin, S. Shmatov, S. Shulha, N. Skatchkov, V. Smirnov, N. Voytishin,
A. Zarubin Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg),
Russia
V. Golovtsov, Y. Ivanov, V. Kim37, E. Kuznetsova38, P. Levchenko, V. Murzin,
V. Oreshkin, I. Smirnov, D. Sosnov, V. Sulimov, L. Uvarov, S. Vavilov, A.
Vorobyev Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
Yu. Andreev, A. Dermenev, S. Gninenko, N. Golubev, A. Karneyeu, M. Kirsanov,
N. Krasnikov, A. Pashenkov, D. Tlisov, A. Toropin Institute for Theoretical
and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
V. Epshteyn, V. Gavrilov, N. Lychkovskaya, V. Popov, I. Pozdnyakov, G.
Safronov, A. Spiridonov, A. Stepennov, V. Stolin, M. Toms, E. Vlasov, A.
Zhokin Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
T. Aushev National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
R. Chistov39, M. Danilov39, P. Parygin, D. Philippov, S. Polikarpov39, E.
Tarkovskii P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
V. Andreev, M. Azarkin, I. Dremin36, M. Kirakosyan, A. Terkulov Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia
A. Baskakov, A. Belyaev, E. Boos, M. Dubinin40, L. Dudko, A. Ershov, A.
Gribushin, V. Klyukhin, O. Kodolova, I. Lokhtin, I. Miagkov, S. Obraztsov, S.
Petrushanko, V. Savrin, A. Snigirev Novosibirsk State University (NSU),
Novosibirsk, Russia
A. Barnyakov41, V. Blinov41, T. Dimova41, L. Kardapoltsev41, Y. Skovpen41
Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre ’Kurchatov
Institute’, Protvino, Russia
I. Azhgirey, I. Bayshev, S. Bitioukov, D. Elumakhov, A. Godizov, V. Kachanov,
A. Kalinin, D. Konstantinov, P. Mandrik, V. Petrov, R. Ryutin, S.
Slabospitskii, A. Sobol, S. Troshin, N. Tyurin, A. Uzunian, A. Volkov National
Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia
A. Babaev, S. Baidali, V. Okhotnikov University of Belgrade, Faculty of
Physics and Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
P. Adzic42, P. Cirkovic, D. Devetak, M. Dordevic, J. Milosevic Centro de
Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid,
Spain
J. Alcaraz Maestre, A. Álvarez Fernández, I. Bachiller, M. Barrio Luna, J.A.
Brochero Cifuentes, M. Cerrada, N. Colino, B. De La Cruz, A. Delgado Peris, C.
Fernandez Bedoya, J.P. Fernández Ramos, J. Flix, M.C. Fouz, O. Gonzalez Lopez,
S. Goy Lopez, J.M. Hernandez, M.I. Josa, D. Moran, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo,
J. Puerta Pelayo, I. Redondo, L. Romero, M.S. Soares, A. Triossi Universidad
Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
C. Albajar, J.F. de Trocóniz Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
J. Cuevas, C. Erice, J. Fernandez Menendez, S. Folgueras, I. Gonzalez
Caballero, J.R. González Fernández, E. Palencia Cortezon, V. Rodríguez Bouza,
S. Sanchez Cruz, P. Vischia, J.M. Vizan Garcia Instituto de Física de
Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
I.J. Cabrillo, A. Calderon, B. Chazin Quero, J. Duarte Campderros, M.
Fernandez, P.J. Fernández Manteca, A. García Alonso, J. Garcia-Ferrero, G.
Gomez, A. Lopez Virto, J. Marco, C. Martinez Rivero, P. Martinez Ruiz del
Arbol, F. Matorras, J. Piedra Gomez, C. Prieels, T. Rodrigo, A. Ruiz-Jimeno,
L. Scodellaro, N. Trevisani, I. Vila, R. Vilar Cortabitarte University of
Ruhuna, Department of Physics, Matara, Sri Lanka
N. Wickramage CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
D. Abbaneo, B. Akgun, E. Auffray, G. Auzinger, P. Baillon, A.H. Ball, D.
Barney, J. Bendavid, M. Bianco, A. Bocci, C. Botta, E. Brondolin, T.
Camporesi, M. Cepeda, G. Cerminara, E. Chapon, Y. Chen, G. Cucciati, D.
d’Enterria, A. Dabrowski, N. Daci, V. Daponte, A. David, A. De Roeck, N.
Deelen, M. Dobson, M. Dünser, N. Dupont, A. Elliott-Peisert, P. Everaerts, F.
Fallavollita43, D. Fasanella, G. Franzoni, J. Fulcher, W. Funk, D. Gigi, A.
Gilbert, K. Gill, F. Glege, M. Gruchala, M. Guilbaud, D. Gulhan, J. Hegeman,
C. Heidegger, V. Innocente, A. Jafari, P. Janot, O. Karacheban18, J. Kieseler,
A. Kornmayer, M. Krammer1, C. Lange, P. Lecoq, C. Lourenço, L. Malgeri, M.
Mannelli, F. Meijers, J.A. Merlin, S. Mersi, E. Meschi, P. Milenovic44, F.
Moortgat, M. Mulders, J. Ngadiuba, S. Nourbakhsh, S. Orfanelli, L. Orsini, F.
Pantaleo15, L. Pape, E. Perez, M. Peruzzi, A. Petrilli, G. Petrucciani, A.
Pfeiffer, M. Pierini, F.M. Pitters, D. Rabady, A. Racz, T. Reis, M. Rovere, H.
Sakulin, C. Schäfer, C. Schwick, M. Seidel, M. Selvaggi, A. Sharma, P. Silva,
P. Sphicas45, A. Stakia, J. Steggemann, D. Treille, A. Tsirou, V. Veckalns46,
M. Verzetti, W.D. Zeuner Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland
L. Caminada47, K. Deiters, W. Erdmann, R. Horisberger, Q. Ingram, H.C.
Kaestli, D. Kotlinski, U. Langenegger, T. Rohe, S.A. Wiederkehr ETH Zurich -
Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland
M. Backhaus, L. Bäni, P. Berger, N. Chernyavskaya, G. Dissertori, M. Dittmar,
M. Donegà, C. Dorfer, T.A. Gómez Espinosa, C. Grab, D. Hits, T. Klijnsma, W.
Lustermann, R.A. Manzoni, M. Marionneau, M.T. Meinhard, F. Micheli, P.
Musella, F. Nessi-Tedaldi, J. Pata, F. Pauss, G. Perrin, L. Perrozzi, S.
Pigazzini, M. Quittnat, C. Reissel, D. Ruini, D.A. Sanz Becerra, M.
Schönenberger, L. Shchutska, V.R. Tavolaro, K. Theofilatos, M.L. Vesterbacka
Olsson, R. Wallny, D.H. Zhu Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
T.K. Aarrestad, C. Amsler48, D. Brzhechko, M.F. Canelli, A. De Cosa, R. Del
Burgo, S. Donato, C. Galloni, T. Hreus, B. Kilminster, S. Leontsinis, I.
Neutelings, G. Rauco, P. Robmann, D. Salerno, K. Schweiger, C. Seitz, Y.
Takahashi, A. Zucchetta National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
T.H. Doan, R. Khurana, C.M. Kuo, W. Lin, A. Pozdnyakov, S.S. Yu National
Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan
P. Chang, Y. Chao, K.F. Chen, P.H. Chen, W.-S. Hou, Arun Kumar, Y.F. Liu,
R.-S. Lu, E. Paganis, A. Psallidas, A. Steen Chulalongkorn University, Faculty
of Science, Department of Physics, Bangkok, Thailand
B. Asavapibhop, N. Srimanobhas, N. Suwonjandee Çukurova University, Physics
Department, Science and Art Faculty, Adana, Turkey
A. Bat, F. Boran, S. Damarseckin, Z.S. Demiroglu, F. Dolek, C. Dozen, I.
Dumanoglu, S. Girgis, G. Gokbulut, Y. Guler, E. Gurpinar, I. Hos49, C. Isik,
E.E. Kangal50, O. Kara, A. Kayis Topaksu, U. Kiminsu, M. Oglakci, G. Onengut,
K. Ozdemir51, S. Ozturk52, D. Sunar Cerci53, B. Tali53, U.G. Tok, H.
Topakli52, S. Turkcapar, I.S. Zorbakir, C. Zorbilmez Middle East Technical
University, Physics Department, Ankara, Turkey
B. Isildak54, G. Karapinar55, M. Yalvac, M. Zeyrek Bogazici University,
Istanbul, Turkey
I.O. Atakisi, E. Gülmez, M. Kaya56, O. Kaya57, S. Ozkorucuklu58, S. Tekten,
E.A. Yetkin59 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
M.N. Agaras, A. Cakir, K. Cankocak, Y. Komurcu, S. Sen60 Institute for
Scintillation Materials of National Academy of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov,
Ukraine
B. Grynyov National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and
Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine
L. Levchuk University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Ball, J.J. Brooke, D. Burns, E. Clement, D. Cussans, O. Davignon, H.
Flacher, J. Goldstein, G.P. Heath, H.F. Heath, L. Kreczko, D.M. Newbold61, S.
Paramesvaran, B. Penning, T. Sakuma, D. Smith, V.J. Smith, J. Taylor, A.
Titterton Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
K.W. Bell, A. Belyaev62, C. Brew, R.M. Brown, D. Cieri, D.J.A. Cockerill, J.A.
Coughlan, K. Harder, S. Harper, J. Linacre, E. Olaiya, D. Petyt, C.H.
Shepherd-Themistocleous, A. Thea, I.R. Tomalin, T. Williams, W.J. Womersley
Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
R. Bainbridge, P. Bloch, J. Borg, S. Breeze, O. Buchmuller, A. Bundock, D.
Colling, P. Dauncey, G. Davies, M. Della Negra, R. Di Maria, G. Hall, G. Iles,
T. James, M. Komm, C. Laner, L. Lyons, A.-M. Magnan, S. Malik, A. Martelli, J.
Nash63, A. Nikitenko7, V. Palladino, M. Pesaresi, D.M. Raymond, A. Richards,
A. Rose, E. Scott, C. Seez, A. Shtipliyski, G. Singh, M. Stoye, T. Strebler,
S. Summers, A. Tapper, K. Uchida, T. Virdee15, N. Wardle, D. Winterbottom, J.
Wright, S.C. Zenz Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom
J.E. Cole, P.R. Hobson, A. Khan, P. Kyberd, C.K. Mackay, A. Morton, I.D. Reid,
L. Teodorescu, S. Zahid Baylor University, Waco, USA
K. Call, J. Dittmann, K. Hatakeyama, H. Liu, C. Madrid, B. McMaster, N.
Pastika, C. Smith Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
R. Bartek, A. Dominguez The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA
A. Buccilli, S.I. Cooper, C. Henderson, P. Rumerio, C. West Boston University,
Boston, USA
D. Arcaro, T. Bose, D. Gastler, D. Pinna, D. Rankin, C. Richardson, J. Rohlf,
L. Sulak, D. Zou Brown University, Providence, USA
G. Benelli, X. Coubez, D. Cutts, M. Hadley, J. Hakala, U. Heintz, J.M.
Hogan64, K.H.M. Kwok, E. Laird, G. Landsberg, J. Lee, Z. Mao, M. Narain, S.
Sagir65, R. Syarif, E. Usai, D. Yu University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
R. Band, C. Brainerd, R. Breedon, D. Burns, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez,
M. Chertok, J. Conway, R. Conway, P.T. Cox, R. Erbacher, C. Flores, G. Funk,
W. Ko, O. Kukral, R. Lander, M. Mulhearn, D. Pellett, J. Pilot, S. Shalhout,
M. Shi, D. Stolp, D. Taylor, K. Tos, M. Tripathi, Z. Wang, F. Zhang University
of California, Los Angeles, USA
M. Bachtis, C. Bravo, R. Cousins, A. Dasgupta, A. Florent, J. Hauser, M.
Ignatenko, N. Mccoll, S. Regnard, D. Saltzberg, C. Schnaible, V. Valuev
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, USA
E. Bouvier, K. Burt, R. Clare, J.W. Gary, S.M.A. Ghiasi Shirazi, G. Hanson, G.
Karapostoli, E. Kennedy, F. Lacroix, O.R. Long, M. Olmedo Negrete, M.I.
Paneva, W. Si, L. Wang, H. Wei, S. Wimpenny, B.R. Yates University of
California, San Diego, La Jolla, USA
J.G. Branson, P. Chang, S. Cittolin, M. Derdzinski, R. Gerosa, D. Gilbert, B.
Hashemi, A. Holzner, D. Klein, G. Kole, V. Krutelyov, J. Letts, M.
Masciovecchio, D. Olivito, S. Padhi, M. Pieri, M. Sani, V. Sharma, S. Simon,
M. Tadel, A. Vartak, S. Wasserbaech66, J. Wood, F. Würthwein, A. Yagil, G.
Zevi Della Porta University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of
Physics, Santa Barbara, USA
N. Amin, R. Bhandari, C. Campagnari, M. Citron, V. Dutta, M. Franco Sevilla,
L. Gouskos, R. Heller, J. Incandela, A. Ovcharova, H. Qu, J. Richman, D.
Stuart, I. Suarez, S. Wang, J. Yoo California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, USA
D. Anderson, A. Bornheim, J.M. Lawhorn, N. Lu, H.B. Newman, T.Q. Nguyen, M.
Spiropulu, J.R. Vlimant, R. Wilkinson, S. Xie, Z. Zhang, R.Y. Zhu Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
M.B. Andrews, T. Ferguson, T. Mudholkar, M. Paulini, M. Sun, I. Vorobiev, M.
Weinberg University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, USA
J.P. Cumalat, W.T. Ford, F. Jensen, A. Johnson, E. MacDonald, T. Mulholland,
R. Patel, A. Perloff, K. Stenson, K.A. Ulmer, S.R. Wagner Cornell University,
Ithaca, USA
J. Alexander, J. Chaves, Y. Cheng, J. Chu, A. Datta, K. Mcdermott, N. Mirman,
J.R. Patterson, D. Quach, A. Rinkevicius, A. Ryd, L. Skinnari, L. Soffi, S.M.
Tan, Z. Tao, J. Thom, J. Tucker, P. Wittich, M. Zientek Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, USA
S. Abdullin, M. Albrow, M. Alyari, G. Apollinari, A. Apresyan, A. Apyan, S.
Banerjee, L.A.T. Bauerdick, A. Beretvas, J. Berryhill, P.C. Bhat, K. Burkett,
J.N. Butler, A. Canepa, G.B. Cerati, H.W.K. Cheung, F. Chlebana, M. Cremonesi,
J. Duarte, V.D. Elvira, J. Freeman, Z. Gecse, E. Gottschalk, L. Gray, D.
Green, S. Grünendahl, O. Gutsche, J. Hanlon, R.M. Harris, S. Hasegawa, J.
Hirschauer, Z. Hu, B. Jayatilaka, S. Jindariani, M. Johnson, U. Joshi, B.
Klima, M.J. Kortelainen, B. Kreis, S. Lammel, D. Lincoln, R. Lipton, M. Liu,
T. Liu, J. Lykken, K. Maeshima, J.M. Marraffino, D. Mason, P. McBride, P.
Merkel, S. Mrenna, S. Nahn, V. O’Dell, K. Pedro, C. Pena, O. Prokofyev, G.
Rakness, L. Ristori, A. Savoy-Navarro67, B. Schneider, E. Sexton-Kennedy, A.
Soha, W.J. Spalding, L. Spiegel, S. Stoynev, J. Strait, N. Strobbe, L. Taylor,
S. Tkaczyk, N.V. Tran, L. Uplegger, E.W. Vaandering, C. Vernieri, M.
Verzocchi, R. Vidal, M. Wang, H.A. Weber, A. Whitbeck University of Florida,
Gainesville, USA
D. Acosta, P. Avery, P. Bortignon, D. Bourilkov, A. Brinkerhoff, L. Cadamuro,
A. Carnes, D. Curry, R.D. Field, S.V. Gleyzer, B.M. Joshi, J. Konigsberg, A.
Korytov, K.H. Lo, P. Ma, K. Matchev, H. Mei, G. Mitselmakher, D. Rosenzweig,
K. Shi, D. Sperka, J. Wang, S. Wang, X. Zuo Florida International University,
Miami, USA
Y.R. Joshi, S. Linn Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
A. Ackert, T. Adams, A. Askew, S. Hagopian, V. Hagopian, K.F. Johnson, T.
Kolberg, G. Martinez, T. Perry, H. Prosper, A. Saha, C. Schiber, R. Yohay
Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA
M.M. Baarmand, V. Bhopatkar, S. Colafranceschi, M. Hohlmann, D. Noonan, M.
Rahmani, T. Roy, F. Yumiceva University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago,
USA
M.R. Adams, L. Apanasevich, D. Berry, R.R. Betts, R. Cavanaugh, X. Chen, S.
Dittmer, O. Evdokimov, C.E. Gerber, D.A. Hangal, D.J. Hofman, K. Jung, J.
Kamin, C. Mills, I.D. Sandoval Gonzalez, M.B. Tonjes, H. Trauger, N. Varelas,
H. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Wu, J. Zhang The University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
M. Alhusseini, B. Bilki68, W. Clarida, K. Dilsiz69, S. Durgut, R.P.
Gandrajula, M. Haytmyradov, V. Khristenko, J.-P. Merlo, A. Mestvirishvili, A.
Moeller, J. Nachtman, H. Ogul70, Y. Onel, F. Ozok71, A. Penzo, C. Snyder, E.
Tiras, J. Wetzel Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
B. Blumenfeld, A. Cocoros, N. Eminizer, D. Fehling, L. Feng, A.V. Gritsan,
W.T. Hung, P. Maksimovic, J. Roskes, U. Sarica, M. Swartz, M. Xiao, C. You The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
A. Al-bataineh, P. Baringer, A. Bean, S. Boren, J. Bowen, A. Bylinkin, J.
Castle, S. Khalil, A. Kropivnitskaya, D. Majumder, W. Mcbrayer, M. Murray, C.
Rogan, S. Sanders, E. Schmitz, J.D. Tapia Takaki, Q. Wang Kansas State
University, Manhattan, USA
S. Duric, A. Ivanov, K. Kaadze, D. Kim, Y. Maravin, D.R. Mendis, T. Mitchell,
A. Modak, A. Mohammadi, L.K. Saini Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, USA
F. Rebassoo, D. Wright University of Maryland, College Park, USA
A. Baden, O. Baron, A. Belloni, S.C. Eno, Y. Feng, C. Ferraioli, N.J. Hadley,
S. Jabeen, G.Y. Jeng, R.G. Kellogg, J. Kunkle, A.C. Mignerey, S. Nabili, F.
Ricci-Tam, Y.H. Shin, A. Skuja, S.C. Tonwar, K. Wong Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, USA
D. Abercrombie, B. Allen, V. Azzolini, A. Baty, G. Bauer, R. Bi, S. Brandt, W.
Busza, I.A. Cali, M. D’Alfonso, Z. Demiragli, G. Gomez Ceballos, M. Goncharov,
P. Harris, D. Hsu, M. Hu, Y. Iiyama, G.M. Innocenti, M. Klute, D. Kovalskyi,
Y.-J. Lee, P.D. Luckey, B. Maier, A.C. Marini, C. Mcginn, C. Mironov, S.
Narayanan, X. Niu, C. Paus, C. Roland, G. Roland, Z. Shi, G.S.F. Stephans, K.
Sumorok, K. Tatar, D. Velicanu, J. Wang, T.W. Wang, B. Wyslouch University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
A.C. Benvenuti${}^{\textrm{\textdagger}}$, R.M. Chatterjee, A. Evans, P.
Hansen, J. Hiltbrand, Sh. Jain, S. Kalafut, M. Krohn, Y. Kubota, Z. Lesko, J.
Mans, N. Ruckstuhl, R. Rusack, M.A. Wadud University of Mississippi, Oxford,
USA
J.G. Acosta, S. Oliveros University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA
E. Avdeeva, K. Bloom, D.R. Claes, C. Fangmeier, F. Golf, R. Gonzalez Suarez,
R. Kamalieddin, I. Kravchenko, J. Monroy, J.E. Siado, G.R. Snow, B. Stieger
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
A. Godshalk, C. Harrington, I. Iashvili, A. Kharchilava, C. Mclean, D. Nguyen,
A. Parker, S. Rappoccio, B. Roozbahani Northeastern University, Boston, USA
G. Alverson, E. Barberis, C. Freer, Y. Haddad, A. Hortiangtham, D.M. Morse, T.
Orimoto, R. Teixeira De Lima, T. Wamorkar, B. Wang, A. Wisecarver, D. Wood
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA
S. Bhattacharya, J. Bueghly, O. Charaf, K.A. Hahn, N. Mucia, N. Odell, M.H.
Schmitt, K. Sung, M. Trovato, M. Velasco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
USA
R. Bucci, N. Dev, M. Hildreth, K. Hurtado Anampa, C. Jessop, D.J. Karmgard, N.
Kellams, K. Lannon, W. Li, N. Loukas, N. Marinelli, F. Meng, C. Mueller, Y.
Musienko35, M. Planer, A. Reinsvold, R. Ruchti, P. Siddireddy, G. Smith, S.
Taroni, M. Wayne, A. Wightman, M. Wolf, A. Woodard The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA
J. Alimena, L. Antonelli, B. Bylsma, L.S. Durkin, S. Flowers, B. Francis, C.
Hill, W. Ji, T.Y. Ling, W. Luo, B.L. Winer Princeton University, Princeton,
USA
S. Cooperstein, P. Elmer, J. Hardenbrook, S. Higginbotham, A. Kalogeropoulos,
D. Lange, M.T. Lucchini, J. Luo, D. Marlow, K. Mei, I. Ojalvo, J. Olsen, C.
Palmer, P. Piroué, J. Salfeld-Nebgen, D. Stickland, C. Tully, Z. Wang
University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, USA
S. Malik, S. Norberg Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
A. Barker, V.E. Barnes, S. Das, L. Gutay, M. Jones, A.W. Jung, A. Khatiwada,
B. Mahakud, D.H. Miller, N. Neumeister, C.C. Peng, S. Piperov, H. Qiu, J.F.
Schulte, J. Sun, F. Wang, R. Xiao, W. Xie Purdue University Northwest,
Hammond, USA
T. Cheng, J. Dolen, N. Parashar Rice University, Houston, USA
Z. Chen, K.M. Ecklund, S. Freed, F.J.M. Geurts, M. Kilpatrick, W. Li, B.P.
Padley, R. Redjimi, J. Roberts, J. Rorie, W. Shi, Z. Tu, A. Zhang University
of Rochester, Rochester, USA
A. Bodek, P. de Barbaro, R. Demina, Y.t. Duh, J.L. Dulemba, C. Fallon, T.
Ferbel, M. Galanti, A. Garcia-Bellido, J. Han, O. Hindrichs, A.
Khukhunaishvili, E. Ranken, P. Tan, R. Taus Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, Piscataway, USA
A. Agapitos, J.P. Chou, Y. Gershtein, E. Halkiadakis, A. Hart, M. Heindl, E.
Hughes, S. Kaplan, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, S. Kyriacou, A. Lath, R.
Montalvo, K. Nash, M. Osherson, H. Saka, S. Salur, S. Schnetzer, D. Sheffield,
S. Somalwar, R. Stone, S. Thomas, P. Thomassen, M. Walker University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
A.G. Delannoy, J. Heideman, G. Riley, S. Spanier Texas A&M University, College
Station, USA
O. Bouhali72, A. Celik, M. Dalchenko, M. De Mattia, A. Delgado, S. Dildick, R.
Eusebi, J. Gilmore, T. Huang, T. Kamon73, S. Luo, R. Mueller, D. Overton, L.
Perniè, D. Rathjens, A. Safonov Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
N. Akchurin, J. Damgov, F. De Guio, P.R. Dudero, S. Kunori, K. Lamichhane,
S.W. Lee, T. Mengke, S. Muthumuni, T. Peltola, S. Undleeb, I. Volobouev, Z.
Wang Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
S. Greene, A. Gurrola, R. Janjam, W. Johns, C. Maguire, A. Melo, H. Ni, K.
Padeken, J.D. Ruiz Alvarez, P. Sheldon, S. Tuo, J. Velkovska, M. Verweij, Q.
Xu University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
M.W. Arenton, P. Barria, B. Cox, R. Hirosky, M. Joyce, A. Ledovskoy, H. Li, C.
Neu, T. Sinthuprasith, Y. Wang, E. Wolfe, F. Xia Wayne State University,
Detroit, USA
R. Harr, P.E. Karchin, N. Poudyal, J. Sturdy, P. Thapa, S. Zaleski University
of Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, WI, USA
M. Brodski, J. Buchanan, C. Caillol, D. Carlsmith, S. Dasu, I. De Bruyn, L.
Dodd, B. Gomber, M. Grothe, M. Herndon, A. Hervé, U. Hussain, P. Klabbers, A.
Lanaro, K. Long, R. Loveless, T. Ruggles, A. Savin, V. Sharma, N. Smith, W.H.
Smith, N. Woods †: Deceased
1: Also at Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria
2: Also at IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
3: Also at Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
4: Also at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
5: Also at Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
6: Also at University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
7: Also at Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
8: Also at Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
9: Also at Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
10: Also at Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt
11: Now at Zewail City of Science and Technology, Zewail, Egypt
12: Also at Department of Physics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia
13: Also at Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France
14: Also at Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia
15: Also at CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva,
Switzerland
16: Also at RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen,
Germany
17: Also at University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
18: Also at Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany
19: Also at Institute of Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
20: Also at Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary
21: Also at MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös
Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
22: Also at Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India
23: Also at Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar, India
24: Also at Shoolini University, Solan, India
25: Also at University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India
26: Also at Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
27: Also at Plasma Physics Research Center, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
28: Also at Università degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
29: Also at Scuola Normale e Sezione dell’INFN, Pisa, Italy
30: Also at Kyunghee University, Seoul, Korea
31: Also at International Islamic University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
32: Also at Malaysian Nuclear Agency, MOSTI, Kajang, Malaysia
33: Also at Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico
34: Also at Warsaw University of Technology, Institute of Electronic Systems,
Warsaw, Poland
35: Also at Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia
36: Now at National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics
Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia
37: Also at St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg,
Russia
38: Also at University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
39: Also at P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia
40: Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA
41: Also at Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia
42: Also at Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
43: Also at INFN Sezione di Pavia a, Università di Pavia b, Pavia, Italy
44: Also at University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physics and Vinca Institute of
Nuclear Sciences, Belgrade, Serbia
45: Also at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
46: Also at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia
47: Also at Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
48: Also at Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics (SMI), Vienna,
Austria
49: Also at Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey
50: Also at Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey
51: Also at Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey
52: Also at Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
53: Also at Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey
54: Also at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
55: Also at Izmir Institute of Technology, Izmir, Turkey
56: Also at Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
57: Also at Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
58: Also at Istanbul University, Faculty of Science, Istanbul, Turkey
59: Also at Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey
60: Also at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
61: Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
62: Also at School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom
63: Also at Monash University, Faculty of Science, Clayton, Australia
64: Also at Bethel University, St. Paul, USA
65: Also at Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey
66: Also at Utah Valley University, Orem, USA
67: Also at Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
68: Also at Beykent University, Istanbul, Turkey
69: Also at Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey
70: Also at Sinop University, Sinop, Turkey
71: Also at Mimar Sinan University, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
72: Also at Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar
73: Also at Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea