PHYSICAL REVIEW D 99, 072001 (2019) Cross-section measurements of the Higgs boson decaying into a pairpofffiffi τ-leptons in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector M. Aaboud et al.* (ATLAS Collaboration) (Received 22 November 2018; published 10 April 2019) A measurement of production cross sections of the Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions is presented in the H → ττ decay channel. The analysis is performed using 36.1 fb−1 of data recorded by the ATLAS pffiffiffi experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at a center-of-mass energy of s ¼ 13 TeV. All combinations of leptonic (τ → lvv̄ with l ¼ e; μ) and hadronic (τ → hadrons v) τ decays are considered. The H → ττ signal over the expected background from other Standard Model processes is established with an observed (expected) significance of 4.4 (4.1) standard deviations. Combined with results obtained using data taken at 7 and 8 TeV center-of-mass energies, the observed (expected) significance amounts to 6.4 (5.4) standard pffiffiffi deviations and constitutes an observation of H → ττ decays. Using the data taken at s ¼ 13 TeV, the total cross section in the H → ττ decay channel is measured to be 3.77þ0.60 þ0.87 −0.59 ðstatÞ −0.74 ðsystÞ pb, for a Higgs boson of mass 125 GeV assuming the relative contributions of its production modes as predicted by the Standard Model. Total cross sections in the H → ττ decay channel are determined separately for vector-boson-fusion production and gluon-gluon-fusion production to be σ VBF H→ττ ¼ 0.28  þ0.11 0.09 ðstatÞ −0.09 ðsystÞ pb and σ ggF þ1.6 H→ττ ¼ 3.1  1.0 ðstatÞ −1.3 ðsystÞ pb, respectively. Similarly, results of a fit are reported in the framework of simplified template cross sections. All measurements are in agreement with Standard Model expectations. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.072001 pffiffiffi I. INTRODUCTION Collaboration with Run-2 data at s ¼ 13 TeV reached a The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations discovered [1,2] a significance of 4.9σ using 35.9 fb−1 of integrated particle consistent with the Standard Model (SM) [3–5] luminosity and 5.9σ combined with data from Run 1 Higgs boson [6–10] in 2012. Several properties of this [18]. While the Higgs-boson coupling to other fermions particle, such as its coupling strengths, spin and charge- such as top quarks [19,20] and bottom quarks [21,22] have parity (CP) quantum numbers,pffiffiwere studied with 7 and been observed, only upper limits exist on its coupling to ffi muons [23,24] and the H → ττ decay mode has been the 8 TeV center-of-mass energy ( s) proton-proton collision data delivered by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2011 only accessible leptonic decay mode. It was also used to and 2012, respectively, referred to as “Run 1.” These results constrain CP violation in the production via vector-boson rely predominantly on studies of the bosonic decay modes fusion (VBF) [25] and is unique in that it provides [11–14] and have not shown any significant deviations sensitivity to CP violation in the Higgs-boson coupling from the SM expectations. to leptons [26]. The coupling of the Higgs boson to the fermionic sector This paper presents cross-section times branching- has been established with the observation of the H → ττ fraction measurements of Higgs bosons that decay into pffiffiffi a decay mode with a signal significance of 5.5σ from a pair of τ-leptons in proton-proton (pp) collisions at s ¼ combination of ATLAS and CMS results [15–17] using 13 TeV using data collected by the ATLAS experiment in LHC Run-1 data. A measurement performed by the CMS 2015 and 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb−1 . All combinations of leptonic (τ → lvv̄ with l ¼ e; μ) and hadronic (τ → hadrons v) τ decays are con- * Full author list given at the end of the article. sidered.1 The corresponding three analysis channels are denoted by τlep τlep, τlep τhad and τhad τhad and are composed of Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. 1 Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to Throughout this paper, the inclusion of charge-conjugate the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, decay modes is implied. The symbol l is used to denote electrons and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3. and muons, also referred to as “light leptons.” 2470-0010=2019=99(7)=072001(39) 072001-1 © 2019 CERN, for the ATLAS Collaboration M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) different dominant backgrounds. While Z → ττ is a dom- pixel detector, both covering jηj < 2.5, followed by a inant background in all channels, the relative contributions transition radiation straw-tube tracker covering jηj < 2. from other backgrounds from top-quark and other vector- The inner tracking detector is immersed in a 2 T axial boson decays, as well as from misidentified leptonic or magnetic field provided by the solenoid. Lead/liquid-argon hadronic τ decays, vary considerably between the channels. (LAr) sampling calorimeters provide electromagnetic (EM) Two analysis categories are defined that are predominantly energy measurements with high granularity. A hadron sensitive to Higgs bosons produced via VBF and gluon- (steel/scintillator-tile) calorimeter covers the central pseu- gluon fusion (ggF). A maximum-likelihood fit is performed dorapidity range (jηj < 1.7). The end-cap and forward on data using distributions of the reconstructed di-τ mass in regions are instrumented with LAr calorimeters for both signal regions (SRs), simultaneously with event yields from the EM and hadronic energy measurements up to jηj ¼ 4.9. control regions (CRs) that are included to constrain nor- The muon spectrometer surrounds the calorimeters and is malizations of major backgrounds estimated from simula- based on three large air-core toroidal superconducting tion. The dominant and irreducible Z → ττ background is magnets with eight coils each. The field integral of the estimated from simulation. This is different from the search toroids ranges between 2.0 and 6.0 T m across most of the for H → ττ decays in Run 1 [15], which used the embedding detector. The muon spectrometer includes a system of technique [27]. A reliable modeling of this background is precision tracking chambers and fast detectors for therefore of crucial importance for this analysis. Validation triggering. regions (VRs) based on Z → ll events are studied, but not Events are selected using a two-level trigger system. The included in the fit, to verify as precisely as possible the first-level trigger is implemented in hardware and uses a modeling of the Z → ττ background. subset of the detector information to filter events that are The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes then processed by a software-based high-level trigger. This the ATLAS detector. This is followed in Sec. III by a further reduces the average recorded collision rate to description of the data set and Monte Carlo (MC) simulated approximately 1 kHz. samples employed by this measurement. Section IV details the reconstruction of particles and jets. The event selection III. DATA AND SIMULATION SAMPLES for each channel and event category as well as signal, The data used in this analysis were taken from pp control and validation regions are discussed in Sec. V. collisions at thepLHC ffiffiffi where proton bunches are collided Background estimation techniques and the systematic uncertainties of the analysis are described in Secs. VI every 25 ns at s ¼ 13 TeV. A combination of several and VII, respectively. The signal extraction procedure and triggers for single light leptons, two light leptons and two the results of the Higgs cross-section measurements in the hadronically decaying τ-leptons were used to record the H → ττ decay mode are presented in Sec. VIII. Section IX data for the analysis, depending on the analysis channel gives the conclusions. (see Sec. VA). After data quality requirements, the samples used for this measurement consist of 3.2 fb−1 of data II. THE ATLAS DETECTOR recorded in 2015, with an average of 14 interactions per bunch crossing, and 32.9 fb−1 recorded in 2016, with an The ATLAS experiment [28] at the LHC is a multipur- average of 25 interactions per bunch crossing. pose particle detector with a forward-backward symmetric Samples of signal and background processes were cylindrical geometry and a near-4π coverage in solid simulated using various MC generators as summarized angle.2 It consists of an inner tracking detector surrounded in Table I. The signal contributions considered include the by a thin superconducting solenoid, electromagnetic and following four processes for Higgs-boson production at the hadron calorimeters, and a muon spectrometer. The inner LHC: ggF, VBF and associated production of a Higgs tracking detector covers the pseudorapidity range jηj < 2.5. boson with a vector boson (VH) or with a top-antitop quark It consists of a silicon pixel detector, which has an addi- pair (tt̄H) where all decay modes for the H → ττ process tional innermost layer (positioned at a radial distance of are included. Other Higgs production processes such as 3.3 cm from the beam line) that was installed after Run 1 associated production with a bottom-antibottom quark pair [29,30], and a silicon microstrip detector surrounding the and with a single top quark are found to be negligible. Higgs decays into WW are considered background and 2 The ATLAS Collaboration uses a right-handed coordinate simulated similarly for these production processes. The system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the mass of the Higgs boson was assumed to be 125 GeV [31]. center of the detector and the z axis along the beam pipe. The x Higgs production by ggF was simulated with the axis points from the IP to the center of the LHC ring, and the y POWHEG-BOX v2 [32–35] NNLOPS program [36] at axis points upwards. Cylindrical coordinates ðr; ϕÞ are used in the transverse plane, ϕ being the azimuthal angle around the z axis. next-to-leading-order (NLO) accuracy in quantum chromo- The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle θ as dynamics (QCD) using the MiNLO approach [37], and η ¼ − ln ptanðθ=2Þ. Angular ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi distance is measured in units of reweighted to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in ΔR ≡ ðΔηÞ2 þ ðΔϕÞ2 . QCD in the Higgs rapidity. The VBF and VH production 072001-2 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) TABLE I. Monte Carlo generators used to describe all signal and background processes together with the corresponding PDF set and the model of parton showering, hadronization and underlying event (UEPS). In addition, the order of the total cross-section calculation is given. The total cross section for VBF production is calculated at approximate-NNLO QCD. More details are given in the text. Process Monte Carlo generator PDF UEPS Cross-section order ggF 3 POWHEG-BOX v2 PDF4LHC15 NNLO PYTHIA 8.212 N LO QCD þ NLO EW VBF POWHEG-BOX v2 PDF4LHC15 NLO PYTHIA 8.212 ∼NNLO QCD þ NLO EWF VH POWHEG-BOX v2 PDF4LHC15 NLO PYTHIA 8.212 NNLO QCD þ NLO EW tt̄H MG5_aMC@NLO v2.2.2 NNPDF30LO PYTHIA 8.212 NLO QCD þ NLO EW W=Z þ jets SHERPA 2.2.1 NNPDF30NNLO SHERPA 2.2.1 NNLO VV=Vγ  SHERPA 2.2.1 NNPDF30NNLO SHERPA 2.2.1 NLO tt̄ POWHEG-BOX v2 CT10 PYTHIA 6.428 NNLO þ NNLL Wt POWHEG-BOX v1 CT10F4 PYTHIA 6.428 NLO processes were simulated at NLO accuracy in QCD using In particular, the dominant Z → ττ background is estimated POWHEG-BOX with the MiNLO approach. The tt̄H produc- using these simulations of Z-boson production. For diboson tion process was simulated with MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO production, the matrix elements were calculated for v2.2.2 [38] at NLO accuracy in QCD. For these signal up to one additional parton at NLO and up to three samples, the simulation was interfaced to the PYTHIA 8.212 additional partons at LO precision. For all samples the [39] model of parton showering, hadronization and under- NNPDF30NNLO [45] PDF set was used together with the lying event (UEPS). To estimate the impact of UEPS SHERPA UEPS model. uncertainties, the ggF, VBF and VH samples were also The impact of UEPS uncertainties, and other modeling simulated with the HERWIG 7.0.3 [40,41] UEPS model. The uncertainties such as LO/NLO precision comparison for PDF4LHC15 [42] parametrization of the parton distribution leading jets, on the main background from Z → ττ is functions (PDFs) was used for these production processes. studied in an alternative sample which was simulated using The AZNLO [43] set of tuned parameters was used, with the MADGRAPH5_aMC@NLO 2.2.2 [38] at leading order CTEQ6L1 [44] PDF set, for the modeling of nonperturbative interfaced to the PYTHIA 8.186 UEPS model. The A14 effects. For the tt̄H production process the NNPDF30LO set of tuned parameters [47] was used together with the [45] PDF parametrization was used in the matrix element NNPDF23LO PDF set [46]. and the NNPDF23LO [46] PDF parametrization for the For the generation of tt̄ production, the POWHEG-BOX v2 UEPS model with the A14 [47] set of tuned parameters for [32–34,72] generator with the CT10 PDF sets in the matrix the modeling of nonperturbative effects. PHOTOS++ version element calculations was used. The predicted tt̄ cross 3.52 [48] was used for QED emissions from electroweak section was calculated with the TOP++2.0 program to (EW) vertices and charged leptons. NNLO in perturbative QCD, including soft-gluon resum- The overall normalization of the ggF process is taken mation to next-to-next-to-leading-log order [73]. Single top- from a next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order (N3 LO) QCD quark production of Wt was simulated using the POWHEG- calculation with NLO EW corrections included [49–52]. BOX v1 [74,75] generator. This generator uses the four- Production by VBF is normalized to an approximate- flavor scheme for the NLO matrix-element calculations NNLO QCD cross section with NLO EW corrections together with the fixed four-flavor PDF set CT10F4. For included [53–55]. The VH samples are normalized to all top-quark production processes, top-quark spin correla- cross sections calculated at NNLO in QCD, with NLO tions were preserved, using MadSpin [76] for the t-channel. EW corrections included [56–58]. The tt̄H process is The parton shower, hadronization, and the underlying normalized to a cross section calculated at NLO in QCD event were simulated using PYTHIA 6.428 [77] with the with NLO EW corrections applied [59–64]. CTEQ6L1 PDF set and the corresponding Perugia 2012 set Background samples of EW production of W=Z bosons of tuned parameters [78]. The top mass was assumed to be from VBF, W=Z-boson production with associated jets and 172.5 GeV. The EvtGen v.1.2.0 program [79] was used for diboson production processes were simulated with the the properties of b- and c-hadron decays. SHERPA 2.2.1 [65] generator. Matrix elements were calcu- For all samples, a full simulation of the ATLAS detector lated using the Comix [66] and OpenLoops [67] matrix- response [80] using the GEANT4 program [81] was per- element generators and merged with the SHERPA UEPS formed. The effect of multiple pp interactions in the same model [68] using the ME+PS@NLO prescription [69]. For and neighboring bunch crossings (pileup) was included by W and Z production with associated jets the matrix elements overlaying minimum-bias events simulated with PYTHIA were calculated for up to two partons at NLO and four 8.186 using the MSTW2008LO PDF [82] and the A2 [83] partons at LO precision. Their inclusive cross sections set of tuned parameters on each generated signal and are normalized to NNLO calculations from FEWZ [70,71]. background event. The number of overlaid events was 072001-3 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) chosen such that the distribution of the average number of Jets are reconstructed from topological clusters in the interactions per pp bunch crossing in the simulation calorimeter using the anti-kt algorithm [88,89], with a radius matches that observed in data. parameter value R ¼ 0.4, and have pT > 20 GeV and jηj < 4.9. To reject jets from pileup, a “Jet Vertex Tagger” (JVT) [90] algorithm is used for jets with pT < IV. OBJECT RECONSTRUCTION 50 GeV and jηj < 2.4. It employs a multivariate technique Electron candidates are reconstructed from energy that relies on jet-tracking and calorimeter-cluster-shape deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeter associated with variables to determine the likelihood that the jet originates a charged-particle track measured in the inner detector. The from pileup. Similarly, pileup jets in the forward region are electron candidates are required to pass the “loose” like- suppressed with a forward JVT [91] algorithm, relying in lihood-based identification selection of Refs. [84,85], to this case only on calorimeter-cluster-shape variables, which have transverse momentum pT > 15 GeV and to be in the is applied to all jets with pT < 50 GeV and jηj > 2.5. In the fiducial volume of the inner detector, jηj < 2.47. The pseudorapidity range jηj < 2.5, b-jets are selected using a transition region between the barrel and end-cap calorim- multivariate algorithm [92,93]. A working point is chosen eters (1.37 < jηj < 1.52) is excluded. The trigger efficiency that corresponds to an efficiency of approximately 85% for for single electrons selected in the analysis ranges between b-jets and rejection factors of 2.8 and 28 for c-jets and light- 90% and 95% [86]. Electron candidates are ignored if they flavor jets, respectively, in simulated tt̄ events. A jet is share their reconstructed track with a muon candidate ignored if it is within ΔR ¼ 0.2 of an electron or hadroni- defined below or if their angular distance from a jet is cally decaying τ candidate. within 0.2 < ΔR < 0.4. Leptonic τ decays are reconstructed as electrons and Muon candidates are constructed by matching an inner muons. The reconstruction of the visible decay products of detector track with a track reconstructed in the muon hadronic τ decays (τhad-vis ) [94] starts with a reconstructed jet spectrometer [87]. The muon candidates are required to that has pT > 10 GeV and jηj < 2.5. As in the case of have pT > 10 GeV and jηj < 2.5 and to pass the “loose” electron reconstruction the transition region between the muon identification requirements of Ref. [87]. The trigger barrel and end-cap calorimeters is excluded. To discriminate efficiency for single muons selected in the analysis is close τhad-vis from jets initiated by light-quarks or gluons, an to 80% (70%) in the barrel in the 2016 (2015) data set and identification algorithm using multivariate techniques is 90% in the end caps [86]. Muon candidates are ignored if applied to τhad-vis candidates. They have to pass the “loose” their angular distance from a jet is ΔR < 0.4 with the identification requirement of Ref. [94]. In addition, the following exceptions: If ΔR < 0.2 or the muon track is τhad-vis candidates are required to have pT > 20 GeV, to associated with the jet, and if the jet has either less than have one or three associated tracks and an absolute electric three tracks or less than twice the transverse momentum of charge of one. Their energy is reconstructed by multivariate the muon candidate, the jet is removed instead. This regression techniques using information about the associ- recovers efficiency for muons that radiate a hard brems- ated tracks and calorimeter clusters, as well as the average strahlung photon in the calorimeter. number of collisions recorded. The trigger efficiency per In the τlep τlep and τlep τhad signal regions, events are τhad-vis selected in the analysis is 95% and 85% for 1-prong selected only if the selected electron and muon candidates and 3-prong τ-leptons, respectively [95]. The τhad-vis can- satisfy their respective “medium” identification criteria. didates are ignored if they are within ΔR ¼ 0.2 of a muon or The reconstruction and identification efficiency for muons electron candidate or if they have a high likelihood score of with the “medium” identification requirement has been being an electron [85]. The requirement on the likelihood measured in Z → μμ events [87]. It is well above 98% over score corresponds to a τhad-vis efficiency measured in Z → ττ the full phase space, except for jηj < 0.1 where the decays of 95% [94]. reconstruction efficiency is about 70%. The combined In the τlep τhad signal regions, events are selected only if the identification and reconstruction efficiency for “medium” τhad-vis candidate passes the “medium” identification require- electrons ranges from 80% to 90% in the pT range of ment, corresponding to an efficiency of 55% and 40% for real 10 GeV to 80 GeV as measured in Z → ee events [85]. In 1-prong and 3-prong τhad-vis , respectively [94]. In addition, if addition, the electrons and muons must satisfy the “gra- a 1-prong τhad-vis candidate and an electron candidate are dient” isolation criterion, which requires that there are no selected, a dedicated multivariate algorithm to reject elec- additional high-pT tracks in a cone around the track and trons misidentified as τhad-vis is applied to suppress Z → ee no significant energy deposits in a cone around the events. In the τhad τhad signal regions, both selected τhad-vis calorimeter clusters of the object after correcting for pileup. candidates have to fulfill the “tight” identification require- The size of the respective cones depends on the pT of the ment, which corresponds to a selection efficiency of 45% for light lepton. This isolation requirement rejects about 10% real 1-prong τhad-vis and 30% for real 3-prong τhad-vis [94]. of light leptons for low pT and less than 1% for pT > The missing transverse momentum vector is calculated 60 GeV [85,87]. as the negative vectorial sum of the pT of the fully 072001-4 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) calibrated and reconstructed physics objects [96]. This TABLE II. Summary of the triggers used to select events for the procedure includes a soft term, which is calculated from the three analysis channels during 2015 and 2016 data-taking and inner detector tracks that originate from the vertex asso- the corresponding pT requirements applied in the analysis. For ciated with the hard-scattering process and that are not the electron þ muon trigger the first number corresponds to the associated with any of the reconstructed objects. The electron pT requirement, the second to the muon pT requirement. For the τhad τhad channel, at least one high-pT jet in addition to the missing transverse momentum (Emiss T ) is defined as the two τhad-vis candidates is required for the 2016 data set (see magnitude of this vector. Sec. VA). The Higgs-boson candidate is reconstructed from the visible decay products of the τ-leptons and from the EmissT , Analysis Analysis pT requirement [GeV] which is assumed to originate from the final-state neutrinos. channel Trigger 2015 2016 The di-τ invariant mass (mMMC ττ ) is determined using the τlep τlep & Single electron 25 27 missing-mass calculator (MMC) [97]. The standard τlep τhad Single muon 21 27 deviation of the reconstructed di-τ mass is 17.0, 15.3 and 14.7 GeV for signal events selected in the τlep τlep , τlep τlep Dielectron 15=15 18=18 τlep τhad and τhad τhad channels, respectively. The pT of the Dimuon 19=10 24=10 Electronþmuon 18=15 18=15 Higgs-boson candidate (pττ T ) is computed as the vector sum of the transverse momenta of the visible decay products of τhad τhad Di-τhad-vis 40=30 40=30 the τ-leptons and the missing transverse momentum vector. single-light-lepton trigger pT requirement. This ensures V. EVENT SELECTION AND CATEGORIZATION that each trigger selects an exclusive set of events. All channels require the exact number of identified In addition to data quality criteria that ensure that the “loose” leptons, i.e., electrons, muons and τhad-vis , as detector was functioning properly, events are rejected if defined in Sec. IV, corresponding to their respective final they contain reconstructed jets associated with energy state. Events with additional “loose” leptons are rejected. deposits that can arise from hardware problems, beam- The two leptons are required to be of opposite charge and halo events or cosmic-ray showers. Furthermore, events are they have to fulfill the pT requirements of the respective required to have at least one reconstructed primary vertex with at least two associated tracks with pT > 0.5 GeV, trigger shown in Table II. The selected τhad-vis in the τlep τhad which rejects noncollision events originating from cosmic channel is required to have pT > 30 GeV. rays or beam-halo events. The primary vertex is chosen as The event selection for the three analysis channels is the pp vertex candidate with the highest sum of the squared summarized in Table III. Only events with Emiss T > 20 GeV transverse momenta of all associated tracks. are selected to reject events without neutrinos. In the τlep τlep The triggers and event selection for the three analysis channel with two same-flavor (SF) light leptons this channels are described in Sec. VA. Selected events are requirement is further tightened to suppress the large Z → categorized into exclusive signal regions, with enhanced ll background. For the same reason, requirements are signal-to-background ratios. In addition, control regions are tightened on the invariant mass of two light leptons (mll ) defined where a specific background is dominant, and thus and a requirement is introduced on the Emiss T calculated only a CR facilitates the adjustment of the simulated prediction from the physics objects without the soft track term of a background contribution to match the observed data. (Emiss;hard T ). Requirements on the angular distance between The signal and control regions are included in the fit the visible decay products of the two selected τ-lepton described in Sec. VIII. They are described in Sec. V B decays (ΔRττ ) and their pseudorapidity difference (jΔηττ j) together with validation regions (VRs) used to validate the are applied in all channels to reject nonresonant back- simulation of the dominant Z þ jets background. ground events. Requirements are applied to the fractions of the τ-lepton momenta carried by each visible decay A. Event selection product xi ¼ pvis i =ðpi þ pi vis miss Þ, where pvisi and pi miss are Depending on the trigger, transverse momentum require- the visible and missing momenta of the ith τ lepton, ordered ments are applied to selected electron, muon, and τhad-vis in descending pT , calculated in the collinear approximation candidates. They are summarized in Table II and their per- [98], to suppress events with Emiss T that is incompatible with object efficiencies are given in Sec. IV. Due to the a di-τ decay. Low transverse mass (mT ), calculated from increasing luminosity and the different pileup conditions, Emiss T and the momentum of the selected light lepton, is the pT thresholds of the triggers were increased during required in the τlep τhad channel to reject events with leptonic data-taking in 2016, which is taken into account in the pT W decays. A requirement on the di-τ mass calculated in the requirements of the event selection. In the τlep τlep channel, collinear approximation (mcoll ττ ) of mττ > mZ − 25 GeV coll the triggers for multiple light leptons are used only if the is introduced in the τlep τlep channel to suppress events highest-pT light lepton does not pass the corresponding from Z → ll and to ensure orthogonality between this 072001-5 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) TABLE III. Summary of the event selection requirements for the three analysis channels that are applied in addition to the respective lepton pT requirements listed in Table II. Emiss;hard T is an alternative Emiss T calculated only from the physics objects without the soft-track term. The transverse mass (mT ) is calculated from Emiss T and the momentum of the selected light lepton. The visible momentum fractions x1 and x2 of the respective τ-lepton and the collinear di-τ mass (mcoll ττ ) are calculated in the collinear approximation [98]. τlep τlep ee=μμ eμ τlep τhad τhad τhad N loose e=μ ¼ 2, N τhad-vis ¼ 0 loose N loose e=μ ¼ 1, N τhad-vis ¼ 1 loose N loose e=μ ¼ 0, N τhad-vis ¼ 2 loose e=μ: Medium, gradient iso. e=μ: Medium, gradient iso. τhad-vis : Medium τhad-vis : Tight Opposite charge Opposite charge Opposite charge mττ > mZ − 25 GeV coll mT < 70 GeV 30 < mll < 75 GeV 30 < mll < 100 GeV Emiss T > 55 GeV Emiss T > 20 GeV Emiss T > 20 GeV Emiss T > 20 GeV ET miss;hard > 55 GeV ΔRττ < 2.0 ΔRττ < 2.5 0.8 < ΔRττ < 2.5 jΔηττ j < 1.5 jΔηττ j < 1.5 jΔηττ j < 1.5 0.1 < x1 < 1.0 0.1 < x1 < 1.4 0.1 < x1 < 1.4 0.1 < x2 < 1.0 0.1 < x2 < 1.2 0.1 < x2 < 1.4 pjT1 > 40 GeV pjT1 > 40 GeV pjT1 > 70 GeV; jηj1 j < 3.2 N b-jets ¼ 0 N b-jets ¼ 0 measurement and the measurement of H → WW  → lνlν dominated by VBF production, it also includes significant [99], which has a similar final state. contributions from ggF production, amounting to up to All channels require at least one jet (j1 ) with pjT1 > 30% of the total expected Higgs-boson signal. 40 GeV to select Higgs bosons produced by VBF and to The boosted category targets events with Higgs bosons suppress background from Z → ττ events when selecting produced through ggF with additional recoiling jets, which Higgs bosons produced through ggF. Since 2016 the di- is motivated by the harder pT -spectrum of the H → ττ τhad-vis first-level trigger requires a jet with pT > 25 GeV signal compared to the dominant background from Z → ττ. calibrated at trigger level with jηj < 3.2 in addition to the It contains all events with pττ T > 100 GeV that do not pass two τhad-vis candidates. In the τhad τhad channel the jet pT the VBF selection. In addition to events from ggF, the requirement is thus raised to pjT1 > 70 GeV to achieve boosted categories contain sizable contributions from VBF and VH production of 10–20% of the expected signal. uniform trigger selection efficiency as a function of pjT1 . Events that pass the event selection, detailed in Table III, The trigger efficiency for the additional jet ranges from 95% but do not fall into the VBF or boosted categories, are not to 100% for these requirements. In the τlep τlep and τlep τhad used in the analysis. channels, the top-quark background is suppressed by Using pττ T , ΔRττ and mjj , the VBF and boosted categories, requiring that no jet with pT > 25 GeV is tagged as a b-jet. referred to as “inclusive” categories, are split further into 13 exclusive signal regions with different signal-to-background B. Signal, control and validation regions ratios to improve the sensitivity. Table IV summarizes the To exploit signal-sensitive event topologies, a “VBF” analysis categories and signal region definitions. Figure 1 and a “boosted” analysis category are defined without any illustrates the expected signal and background composition in overlap in phase space. The VBF category targets events the signal and control regions of all analysis channels. Figure 2 with a Higgs boson produced by VBF and is characterized compares for each analysis channel the observed distributions by the presence of a second high-pT jet (pjT2 > 30 GeV). In with predictions, as resulting from the fit described in addition, the two jets are required to be in opposite Sec. VIII, for pττ T in the boosted inclusive categories, and hemispheres of the detector with a large pseudorapidity for mjj in the VBF inclusive categories. The observed data separation of jΔηjj j > 3 and their invariant mass (mjj ) is agree within the given uncertainties with the background required to be larger than 400 GeV. The selected leptons are expectation described in Sec. VI for all distributions. required to have η-values that lie between those of the Six control regions are defined to constrain the normali- two jets (“central leptons”). Although this category is zation of the dominant backgrounds in regions of phase 072001-6 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) TABLE IV. Definition of the VBF and boosted analysis categories and of their respective signal regions (SRs). The selection criteria, which are applied in addition to those described in Table III, are listed for each channel. The VBF high-pττ T SR is only defined for the τhad τhad channel, resulting in a total of seven VBF SRs and six boosted SRs. All SRs are exclusive and their yields add up to those of the corresponding VBF and boosted inclusive regions. Signal region Inclusive τlep τlep τlep τhad τhad τhad VBF High-pττ T pjT2 > 30 GeV  pττ T > 140 GeV jΔηjj j > 3 ΔRττ < 1.5 mjj > 400 GeV Tight ηj1 · ηj2 < 0 mjj > 800 GeV mjj > 500 GeV Not VBF high-pττ T Central leptons pττ T > 100 GeV mjj >ð1550−250·jΔηjj jÞ GeV Loose Not VBF tight Not VBF high-pττ T and not VBF tight Boosted High-pττ T Not VBF pττ T > 140 GeV pττ T > 100 GeV ΔRττ < 1.5 Low-pττ T Not boosted high-pττ T space where their purity is high. Their definitions are applying the same selection as for the SF τlep τlep VBF summarized in Table V. Two Z → ll CRs, which are both and boosted inclusive regions, respectively, but with the more than 90% pure in Z → ll events, are defined by mll requirement modified to 80 < mll < 100 GeV. The τlepτlep VBF τ lepτlep boosted Z → ll CR Z → ll CR ATLAS s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 H → ττ Top Z → ττ Other backgrounds Z → ll Misidentified τ τlepτlep VBF τ lepτlep boosted τlepτhad VBF τ lepτhad boosted τhadτhad VBF top CR top CR top CR top CR high-p ττ SR T τlepτlep VBF τ lepτlep boosted τlepτhad VBF τ lepτhad boosted τhadτhad VBF τhadτhad boosted tight SR high-p τ τ SR tight SR high-p τ τ SR tight SR high-p τ τ SR T T T τlepτlep VBF τ lepτlep boosted τlepτhad VBF τ lepτhad boosted τhadτhad VBF τhadτhad boosted loose SR low-p τ τ SR loose SR low-p τ τ SR loose SR low-p τ τ SR T T T τ lepτlep τ lepτhad τhadτhad FIG. 1. Expected signal and background composition in 6 control regions (CRs) and the 13 signal regions (SRs) used in the analysis. 072001-7 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) ×103 ×103 ×103 Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV ATLAS Data 2015 + 2016 2.5 ATLAS Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS Data 2015 + 2016 −1 H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) −1 H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) 2 −1 H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ τlepτlep boosted incl. Other backgrounds 2 τlepτhad boosted incl. Other backgrounds τhadτhad boosted incl. Other backgrounds 1 Misidentified τ Misidentified τ 1.5 Misidentified τ Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty 1.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300 p τTτ [GeV] p τTτ [GeV] p τTτ [GeV] (a) (b) (c) 200 Events / 100 GeV Events / 100 GeV Events / 100 GeV 120 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) 250 ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) −1 −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ 100 150 τlepτlep VBF incl. Other backgrounds 200 τlepτhad VBF incl. Other backgrounds τhadτhad VBF incl. Other backgrounds Misidentified τ Misidentified τ Misidentified τ 80 Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty 150 100 60 40 100 50 20 50 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 mjj [GeV] mjj [GeV] mjj [GeV] (d) (e) (f) FIG. 2. Comparisons between data and predictions as computed by the fit of (top) the pT of the Higgs-boson candidate (pττ T ) in the boosted inclusive category and (bottom) the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets (mjj ) in the VBF inclusive category for (left) the τlep τlep channel, (center) the τlep τhad channel and (right) the τhad τhad channel. The ratios of the data to the background model are shown in the lower panels. The observed Higgs-boson signal (μ ¼ 1.09) is shown with the solid red line. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. top-quark background is characterized by the presence of τlep τlep channel are about 80% pure in top-quark events. For b-jets. Four separate top CRs are defined by inverting the the top CRs in the τlep τhad channel, the requirement of b-jet veto in the inclusive VBF and boosted categories for mT < 70 GeV is replaced by mT > 40 GeV to further each of the τlep τlep and τlep τhad channels. The top CRs in the enhance the purity to about 70% in the VBF top CR TABLE V. Definitions of the six control regions (CRs) used to constrain the Z → ll and top backgrounds to the event yield in data in the τlep τlep and τlep τhad channels. “SF” denotes a selection of same-flavor light leptons. Region Selection τlep τlep VBF Z → ll CR τlep τlep VBF incl. selection, 80 < mll < 100 GeV, SF τlep τlep boosted Z → ll CR τlep τlep boosted incl. selection, 80 < mll < 100 GeV, SF τlep τlep VBF top CR τlep τlep VBF incl. selection, inverted b-jet veto τlep τlep boosted top CR τlep τlep boosted incl. selection, inverted b-jet veto τlep τhad VBF top CR τlep τhad VBF incl. selection, inverted b-jet veto, mT > 40 GeV τlep τhad boosted top CR τlep τhad boosted incl. selection, inverted b-jet veto, mT > 40 GeV 072001-8 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) and about 60% in the boosted top CR. No such control TABLE VI. Normalization factors for backgrounds that have regions are defined for the τhad τhad channel since the top their normalization constrained using data in the fit, including all and Z → ll backgrounds are negligible in this case. statistical and systematic uncertainties described in Sec. VII, but One validation region is defined for each signal region without uncertainties in total simulated cross sections extrapo- (“Z → ττ VRs”) to validate the event yields and kinematic lated to the selected phase space. Systematic uncertainties are the distributions of simulated Z → ττ events. The Z → ττ VRs dominant contribution to the normalization factor uncertainties. Also shown are the analysis channels to which the normalization are composed of Z → ll events with kinematics similar to factors are applied. the Z → ττ background in the respective signal regions. This is achieved by starting with an event selection that is Normalization factors based on the SF τlep τlep channel preselection with the Background Channel VBF Boosted following differences that account for the selection of Z → ll (CR) τlep τlep 0.88þ0.34 1.27þ0.30 light leptons instead of decay products from τ-leptons: −0.30 −0.25 Top (CR) τlep τlep 1.19  0.09 1.07  0.05 The mcoll ττ , ET miss and Emiss;hard requirements are dropped and T Top (CR) τlep τhad 1.53þ0.30 1.13  0.07 the mll requirement is inverted to mll > 80 GeV. The −0.27 Fake-τhad-vis τhad τhad 1.12  0.12 other requirements on τ-lepton decays are replaced with (data-driven) requirements on the two light leptons. In particular, the Z → ττ τlep τlep ,τlep τhad , 1.04þ0.10 1.11  0.05 −0.09 requirements on pττ T are substituted by the pT of the Z (fit in each SR) τhad τhad boson computed from the pT of the light leptons (pll T ). Requirements on jets are unchanged since they define the shape of most kinematic distributions for Z-boson produc- tion similarly in the SRs and the Z → ττ VRs. More than factor for the data-driven fake-τhad-vis background scales the 99% of the selected events are from Z → ll in all Z → event yield of the template of events that fail the opposite- ττ VRs. charge requirement (see Sec. VI D). The Z → ττ normali- zation is constrained by data in the mMMC ττ distributions of the signal regions. Systematic uncertainties are the dom- VI. BACKGROUND ESTIMATION inant contribution to the normalization factor uncertainties. The final-state topologies of the three analysis channels have different background compositions, which necessi- A. Z → ττ background validation tates different strategies for the background estimation. In The Drell-Yan process pp → Z=γ  → ττ is a dominant each SR, the expected number of background events and irreducible background in all analysis categories and the associated kinematic distributions are derived from a contributes between 50% and 90% of the total background mixture of data-driven methods and simulation. depending on the signal region. The separation between the Background contributions with τhad-vis , with prompt light Drell-Yan and the H → ττ signal processes is limited by the leptons and with light leptons from τ-lepton decays are mMMC resolution. ττ estimated from simulation. If their contribution is signifi- The modeling of this important background is validated cant, their normalization is constrained by the observed using Z → ττ VRs that consist of Z → ll events. In Fig. 3, event yields in CRs. For smaller contributions of this the observed distributions of several variables are compared type, their normalization is entirely taken from the theo- with simulation normalized to the event yield in data. The retical cross sections with the precision in QCD listed in selected observables correspond to either variables corre- Table I. This includes di-boson processes and a small lated with mMMC ττ (plT1 and plT2 ), or to major variables used contribution from EW production of W=Z bosons from VBF. Contributions from light- and heavy-flavor jets that for categorization (pll T , ΔRll , Δηjj and mjj ), or to are misidentified as prompt, light leptons or τhad-vis are variables to which different requirements are applied in estimated using data-driven methods. They are labeled as each decay channel (pjT1 ). Generally, the SHERPA simulation “fake-l” and “fake-τhad-vis ” backgrounds, respectively, and describes the shape of data distributions within the exper- collectively as “misidentified τ”, throughout this paper. The imental and theoretical uncertainties (see Sec. VII), with the contamination from H → WW  decays is treated as a exception of a slight trend in the ratio of data to simulation background in the τlep τlep channel, while it is negligible as a function of Δηjj and mjj shown in Fig. 3. These trends in other channels. have no impact on the modeling of mMMC ττ . Reweighting the For the background sources that have their normalization simulation with the observed mjj distribution, which is an constrained using data, Table VI shows the normalization important variable for VBF categorization, has a negligible factors and their uncertainties obtained from the fit (see impact on the measurement. In the fit, the normalization of Sec. VIII). For simulated backgrounds, the factors compare the Z → ττ background is correlated across the decay the background normalizations with values determined channels and constrained by data in the mMMC ττ distributions from their theoretical cross sections. The normalization of the signal regions associated with the boosted and VBF 072001-9 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) ×103 ×103 ×103 30 Events / 0.2 Events / 100 GeV Events / 10 GeV 12 10 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS Z → ll ATLAS Z → ll ATLAS Z → ll s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds 25 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds 10 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds 8 τlepτhad VBF Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. τlepτhad VBF Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. τlepτhad VBF Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty 20 8 6 15 6 4 10 4 2 5 2 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 3 4 5 6 7 500 1000 1500 2000 50 100 150 200 250 300 |Δη | mjj [GeV] p ll [GeV] jj T (a) (b) (c) ×103 ×103 ×103 Events / 0.1 Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 10 ATLAS Z → ll 100 ATLAS Z → ll 80 ATLAS Z → ll −1 −1 −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Other backgrounds s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Other backgrounds s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Other backgrounds τlepτhad VBF Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. 80 τlepτhad boost. Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. τlepτhad boost. Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. 8 Uncertainty Uncertainty 60 Uncertainty 6 60 40 4 40 20 2 20 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 50 100 150 200 250 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 j p 1 [GeV] p ll [GeV] T Δ R ll T (d) (e) (f) ×103 ×103 ×103 60 Events / 10 GeV Events / 5 GeV Events / 5 GeV 60 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS Z → ll 40 ATLAS Z → ll ATLAS Z → ll 50 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds 50 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds τlepτhad boost. Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. τlepτhad boost. Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. τlepτhad boost. Z → τ τ VR Theory Uncert. 40 Uncertainty 30 Uncertainty 40 Uncertainty 30 30 20 20 20 10 10 10 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.8 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 20 40 60 80 100 j l l p 1 [GeV] p T1 [GeV] p T2 [GeV] T (g) (h) (i) FIG. 3. Observed and expected distributions in the Z → ττ validation regions (VRs) corresponding to (a)–(d) the τlep τhad VBF inclusive category and (e)–(i) the τlep τhad boosted inclusive category. Shown are, in the respective region: (a) the pseudorapidity separation (jΔηjj j) and (b) the invariant mass (mjj ) of the two highest-pT jets; (c) and (e) the pT of the di-lepton system (pll T ); (d) and (g) j1 the pT of the highest-pT jet (pT ); (f) the angular distance between the light leptons (ΔRll ); (h) the pT of the highest-pT light lepton (plT1 ); and (i) the pT of the second-highest-pT light lepton (plT2 ). The predictions in these validation regions are not computed by the fit, but are simply normalized to the event yield in data. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties is indicated by the hatched bands. The ratios of the data to the background model are shown in the lower panels together with the theoretical uncertainties in the SHERPA simulation of Z → ll, which are indicated by the blue lines. 072001-10 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) ×103 Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV 80 Data 2015 + 2016 1.5 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS Z →ττ ATLAS Z →ττ ATLAS Z →ττ s =13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z → ll s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z → ll 60 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z → ll τlepτlep VBF Z → ll CR Top τlepτlep boosted top CR Top τlepτhad VBF top CR Top 60 Other backgrounds Other backgrounds Misidentified τ Uncertainty 1 Misidentified τ Uncertainty Uncertainty 40 40 0.5 20 20 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.5 1.2 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.8 0.5 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 300 mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] (a) (b) (c) FIG. 4. For the control regions (CRs) defined in Sec. V, comparisons between data and predictions as computed by the fit for the reconstructed di-τ invariant mass (mMMC ττ ). Shown are (a) the τlep τlep VBF Z → ll control region (CR), (b) the τlep τlep boosted top CR and (c) the τlep τhad VBF top CR. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. The ratios of the data to the background model are shown in the lower panels. categories, independently. As shown in Table VI, it is misidentified as τhad-vis candidates scaled to match that constrained to 5% in the boosted category and to 9% observed in data [94]. in the VBF category. The relative acceptance of events among the signal regions within a category is validated C. Top-quark background by applying the corresponding event-selection criteria to The production of tt̄ pairs or single top quarks is a the Z → ττ VRs. The expected relative acceptance from significant background (“top background”) for the τlep τlep simulation agrees with data within uncertainties for all and τlep τhad channels, due to the production of prompt light regions. Figures 8 and 9 show the good modeling of the leptons with associated Emiss in the top-quark decay chain Z → ττ mMMC ττ distribution in all signal regions. Additional T t → Wb, W → lν; τν. Events where a selected τ-lepton uncertainties in the relative acceptances and in the shape of decay product is misidentified, are estimated using data- the mMMC ττ distributions in the signal regions are evaluated driven methods that are discussed in Sec. VI D. The from theoretical and experimental uncertainties described remaining top background is estimated from simulation. in Sec. VII. In the τlep τlep and τlep τhad channels the normalization of simulated top background is additionally constrained by the B. Z → ll background absolute event yields in their respective top CRs to 30% Decays of Z bosons into light leptons are a significant in the τlep τhad VBF top CR and less than 10% in the other background for the τlep τlep and τlep τhad channels, where top CRs, as shown in Table VI. Figures 4(b) and 4(c) show mismeasured Emiss T can bias the reconstructed mMMCττ of mMMC ττ distributions in the τlep τlep boosted top CR and the light-lepton pairs towards values similar to those expected τlep τhad VBF top CR, respectively. for the signal. The observed event yields in the Z → llCRs constrain the normalization of simulated Z → ll events in D. Backgrounds from misidentified τ the τlep τlep channel to 40% in the VBF category and to Apart from the small contribution from light leptons 25% in the boosted category, as shown in Table VI. misidentified as τhad-vis described in Sec. VI B, hadronic jets The good modeling of the mMMC ττ distribution in the τlep τlep can be misidentified as τhad-vis , electrons and muons. These VBF Z → ll CR is shown in Fig. 4(a). In other channels, sources of background contribute up to half of the total the contribution from Z → ll events is normalized to its background, depending on the signal region, and are theoretical cross section. In the τlep τhad channel, Z → ll estimated with data-driven techniques. Since the back- background contributes primarily through Z → ee decays ground sources depend on the event topology, specific where an electron is misidentified as a τhad-vis candidate. methods are applied to each individual channel. Due to the dedicated electron veto algorithm applied to In the τlep τlep channel, the main sources of the fake-l selected 1-prong τhad-vis candidates (see Sec. VA), this background are multijets, W bosons in association with background is small. This and other backgrounds from jets, and semileptonically decaying tt̄ events. All these light leptons misidentified as τhad-vis in this channel are background sources are treated together. Fake-l regions are estimated from simulation, with the probability for electrons defined in data by requiring that the light lepton with the 072001-11 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) second-highest pT does not satisfy the “gradient” isolation pT and track multiplicity of the τhad-vis candidate and on the criterion. This is referred to as “inverted” isolation. In type of parton initiating the jet. Therefore, they are addition, if the light lepton is an electron, its identification computed depending on the pT and the track multiplicity, criteria are relaxed to “loose.” Fake-l templates are created in both quark-jet-dominated “W-enhanced” and gluon-jet- from these samples by subtracting top and Z → ll back- dominated “multijet-enhanced” regions. The W-enhanced grounds that produce real light leptons, estimated from regions are defined by inverting the mT < 70 GeV require- simulation. The normalization of each template is then ment and the multijet-enhanced regions are defined by scaled by a factor that corrects for the inverted-isolation inverting the light-lepton isolation, relative to the inclusive requirement. These correction factors are computed boosted and VBF selections. Backgrounds from Z-boson for each combination of lepton flavor from events that pass production with associated jets and semileptonically the τlep τlep selection but have same-charge light leptons, decaying tt̄ have fake-factors similar to those found in subtracting simulated top and Z → ll backgrounds. Fake-l backgrounds from W bosons, and their contributions are background in the top-quark CRs is estimated following the negligible. The fake-factors are in the range 0.15–0.25 for same procedure. 1-prong and 0.01–0.04 for 3-prong τhad-vis . To obtain the Systematic uncertainties in the shape and normalization fake-τhad-vis background estimate for the signal regions, of the fake-l background in the τlep τlep channel depend on these fake-factors are first weighted by the multijets-to-W the pT of the second-highest-pT lepton and are estimated as fraction. The weighted fake-factors are then applied to follows. A closure test of the background estimate is events in regions defined by the selections of the corre- performed using events where the leptons are required to sponding signal regions, except that the highest-pT τhad-vis have the same charge and yields an uncertainty ranging candidate passes a very loose τhad-vis identification and fails between 20% and 65%. An uncertainty in the heavy-flavor the “medium” one (“anti-ID” regions). The relative multijet content is estimated by using isolation correction factors contribution in each anti-ID region is estimated from the that are computed from samples selected with inverted b-jet yield of events that fail the light-lepton isolation require- requirements. This uncertainty is as large as 50%. Minor ment, multiplied by a factor that corrects for this require- contributions come from the uncertainty in the fractional ment. The multijet contribution varies by more than 50% composition of the fake-l background in top-quark decays, and depends on the lepton pT and on the Δϕ between multijet events and W-boson production. τhad-vis and Emiss T . The good agreement between data In the τlep τhad channel, a “fake-factor” method is used to and background estimates is shown in Fig. 5(a) for the derive estimates for fake-τhad-vis events, composed mainly main discriminant of the analysis, mMMC ττ , in the boosted of multijet events and W-boson production in association W-enhanced region. with jets. A fake-factor is defined as the ratio of the number The dominant contribution to the uncertainties in the of events where the highest-pT jet is identified as a fake-τhad-vis background in the τlep τhad channel originates “medium” τhad-vis candidate to the number of events with from the statistical uncertainty in the individual fake-factors a highest-pT jet that passes a very loose τhad-vis identifica- of up to 10% in the boosted signal regions and up to 35% in tion but fails the “medium” one. Fake-factors depend on the the VBF signal regions. Minor contributions originate from 200 Events / Bin Events / 10 GeV Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS Z →ττ ATLAS Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Other backgrounds 150 τlepτhad boosted W -enh. Misidentified τ 600 τhadτhad boost. low-p Tτ τ SR Misidentified τ Uncertainty Uncertainty 100 400 50 200 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.5 1.1 1 1 0.5 0.9 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 0.5 1 1.5 mτMMC τ [GeV] Δη τ τ (a) (b) FIG. 5. Observed distributions and predictions computed by the fit for (a) mMMC ττ in the W-enhanced region of the τlep τhad boosted inclusive category, and (b) Δη between the two τhad-vis , for events in the boosted low-pττ T signal region (SR) of the τhad τ had channel. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. The ratios of the data to the background model are shown in the lower panels. 072001-12 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) the statistical uncertainty in the anti-ID regions and uncertainties. The uncertainties in backgrounds from mis- uncertainties in the fractional size of the multijet contri- identified τ-leptons, which are estimated using data-driven bution to the fake-τhad-vis background. techniques, are discussed in Sec. VI D. The effects of all In the τhad τhad channel, the multijet background is uncertainties are included in the fit model described in modeled using a template extracted from data that pass Sec. VIII. the signal-region selections, but where the τhad-vis candi- dates are allowed to have two tracks and required to fail the A. Theoretical uncertainties in signal opposite-charge requirement (nOC region). The contribu- The procedures to estimate the uncertainty in the Higgs tion of events with true τ-leptons from other SM processes production cross sections follow the recommendations by is subtracted from this template using simulation. The the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group [100]. They template is then reweighted using scale factors dependent are briefly summarized below. Uncertainties are evaluated on the difference in ϕ between the τhad-vis candidates separately for their impact on the total cross section, their (Δϕττ ). These scale factors are derived by comparing the impact on the acceptance in different SRs, and on the shape template from an nOC selection with a region obtained by of the mMMC ττ distribution in each SR. requiring the τhad-vis pair to have opposite charge and the The cross section of ggF production in association with second-highest-pT τhad-vis to fail the “tight” but pass the an exclusive number of additional jets has large uncertain- “medium” identification requirements. As the yield of ties from higher-order QCD corrections [101]. In this events that pass these identification requirements is small, analysis, the boosted and VBF categories almost exclu- the scale factors are derived from events that pass the τhad τhad selection with looser Δηττ and ΔRττ requirements sively select ggF events with one and two additional jets, to gain statistical power. The normalization of the multijet respectively. To take this effect into account, nine uncer- tainty sources are included. Four sources account for background is constrained in the fit by data in the mMMC ττ uncertainties in the jet multiplicities due to missing distribution in the signal regions. For this, a normalization higher-order corrections: Two sources account for yield factor is defined and it is correlated across all τhad τhad signal uncertainties and two sources account for migration uncer- regions. Figure 5(b) shows good agreement between data tainties of zero to one jets and one to at least two jets in the and background predictions in the distribution of Δη event, respectively, using the STWZ [102] and BLPTW between the two τhad-vis , which has a quite different shape [102–104] predictions as an input. Three uncertainty for the multijets than for the Z → ττ process. In this figure, sources parametrize modeling uncertainties in the Higgs- events are selected that pass the τhad τhad boosted low-pττ T boson pT , two of which encapsulate the migration uncer- selection. Contributions from other backgrounds, such as tainty between the intermediate and high-pT regions of W with associated jets, range from 2% to 5% in the events with at least one jet, and one which encapsulates the τhad τhad SRs. treatment of the top-quark mass in the loop corrections, The event yield of the multijet background in the τhad τhad where the difference between the LO and NLO predictions channel is constrained by data to 15% in the signal is taken as an uncertainty due to missing higher-order regions as shown in Table VI. The dominant contribution to corrections. Two sources account for the acceptance the uncertainties that affect the mMMC ττ shape originates from uncertainties of ggF production in the VBF phase space the statistical uncertainties in the Δϕττ scale factors and from selecting exactly two and at least three jets, respec- amounts to 8%. The systematic uncertainty in these scale tively. Their size is estimated using an extension of the factors is estimated by comparing them with scale factors Stewart–Tackmann method [105,106]. The resulting accep- computed from the nOC region and a CR defined by tance uncertainties from these nine sources range from requiring opposite-charge τhad-vis to pass “loose” but not 1% to 10%, with the dominant uncertainties due to the “medium” identification. Minor contributions arise from modeling of the Higgs pT distribution in all SRs, to the the uncertainty in the extrapolation from the nOC require- scale variations in the boosted SRs, and to the acceptance ment and the uncertainty from the subtraction of simulated uncertainties in the VBF signal regions. backgrounds. The combination of these uncertainties leads For VBF and VH production cross sections, the uncer- to a total variation in the mMMC ττ template shape by at most tainties due to missing higher-order QCD corrections are 10% between bins. estimated by varying the factorization and renormalization scales by factors of two around the nominal scale. The VII. SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES resulting uncertainties in the total cross section are below The expected signal and background yields in the various 1% for VBF and WH production and below 5% for ZH signal and control regions as well as the shape of the mMMC ττ production. The uncertainties in the acceptance in the distributions in the signal regions are affected by systematic different SRs are about 1% for VBF production in all uncertainties. These are discussed below, grouped into categories. For VH production the relative acceptance three categories: theoretical uncertainties in signal, theo- uncertainty ranges between −10% and þ20% in VBF retical uncertainties in background, and experimental SRs. It is below 10% in boosted SRs. 072001-13 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) Uncertainties related to the simulation of the underlying energy scale and resolution of jets, τhad-vis , light leptons and event, hadronization and parton shower for all signal Emiss T . These uncertainties affect both the event yields and samples are estimated by comparing the acceptance when the shape of the mMMC ττ . The dominant experimental using the default UEPS model from PYTHIA 8.212 with an uncertainties in the final result are related to jet and alternative UEPS model from HERWIG 7.0.3. The resulting τhad-vis reconstruction. The impact of the electron- and acceptance uncertainties range from 2% to 26% for ggF muon-related uncertainties [86,87,109] on the measure- production and from 2% to 18% for VBF production, ment are small. Uncertainties in the integrated luminosity depending on the signal region. The PDF uncertainties are affect the number of predicted signal and background estimated using 30 eigenvector variations and two αS events, with the exception of processes that are normalized variations that are evaluated independently relative to the to data, see Table VI. This uncertainty is 2.1% for the default PDF set PDF4LHC15 [42]. The total uncertainty combined 2015 þ 2016 data set. It is derived using a due to these variations is 5% or less depending on the SR methodology similar to that detailed in Ref. [110], and and the Higgs production mode. Finally, an uncertainty in using the LUCID-2 detector for the baseline luminosity the H → ττ decay branching ratio of 1% [100] affects the measurements [111], from a calibration of the luminosity signal rates. All sources of theoretical uncertainties in the scale using x-y beam-separation scans. signal expectation are correlated across SRs. The uncertainties of the τhad-vis identification efficiency are in the range of 2–4.5% for the reconstruction efficiency B. Theoretical uncertainties in backgrounds [112], 3–14% for the trigger efficiency (depending on the τhad-vis pT ), 5–6% for the identification efficiency and Uncertainties from missing higher-order corrections, the 3–14% for the rate at which an electron is misidentified PDF parametrization and the UEPS modelling are also as τhad-vis (depending on the τhad-vis η) [94]. The uncertain- considered for the dominant Z → ττ background. The ties of the b-tagging efficiencies are measured in dedicated UEPS modelling uncertainties are estimated by comparing calibration analyses [92] and are decomposed into uncor- with an alternative Z → ττ sample as described in Sec. III. related components. Uncertainties in the efficiency to Since its overall normalization is constrained separately in pass the JVT and forward JVT requirements are also the VBF and boosted SRs, variations due to these uncer- considered [91,113]. Simulated events are corrected for tainties are considered in the event migration within an differences in these efficiencies between data and simu- analysis channel, in the mMMC ττ shape and in the relative lation and the associated uncertainties are propagated change in acceptance between the three analysis channels. through the analysis. These variations are treated as uncorrelated between the The uncertainties of the τhad-vis energy scale [94] are VBF and boosted SRs. In addition, the first two types of determined by fitting the Z-boson mass in Z → ττ events, variations are treated as uncorrelated between the three reconstructed using the visible τ decay products. The analysis channels. This treatment accounts for the precision amounts to 2–3%, which is dominated by the differences in the corresponding event selections. The uncertainty of background modeling. Additional uncertain- largest uncertainties are due to the CKKW matching ties based on the modeling of the calorimeter response to [107] and are evaluated as a function of the number of single particles are added for τhad-vis with pT > 50 GeV true jets and the Z-boson pT . They vary between 1% and [114]. The jet energy scale and its uncertainty are derived by 5% depending on the SR. The uncertainty in the measured combining information from test-beam data, LHC collision cross section for electroweak Z production with two data and simulation [115]. The uncertainties from these associated jets [108] is found to be small compared to measurements are factorized into eight principal compo- the other uncertainties in Z-boson production. nents. Additional uncertainties that are considered are The top-quark background normalization in the τlep τlep related to jet flavor, pileup corrections, η-dependence, and and τlep τhad channels as well as the Z → ll background high-pT jets, yielding a total of 20 independent sources. The normalization in the τlep τlep channel are constrained by data uncertainties amount to 1–6% per jet, depending on the jet in dedicated CRs. All other simulated background contri- pT . The jet energy resolution uncertainties [116] are divided butions are normalized to their Monte Carlo prediction. For into 11 independent components and amount to 1–6%. all simulated background contributions, other than Z → ττ, Since systematic uncertainties of the energy scales of all no theoretical uncertainties are considered, as their impact is objects affect the reconstructed EmissT , this is recalculated small compared to the uncertainties in the dominant back- after each variation is applied. The scale uncertainty of grounds from Z → ττ and misidentified leptons. Emiss due to the energy in the calorimeter cells not T associated with physics objects is also taken into account C. Experimental uncertainties [96]. The uncertainty of the resolution of Emiss T arises from Experimental systematic uncertainties result from uncer- the energy resolution uncertainties of each of the Emiss T tainties in efficiencies for triggering, object reconstruction terms and the modeling of pileup and its effects on the soft and identification, as well as from uncertainties in the term (see Sec. IV). 072001-14 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) VIII. RESULTS processes in certain regions. For the measurements, all theoretical uncertainties are included, except those related Maximum-likelihood fits are performed on data to extract to the respective measured signal cross sections, and are parameters of interest that probe H → ττ production with correlated as described in Sec. VII A. The experimental increasing granularity. Firstly, a single parameter is fitted to uncertainties are fully correlated across categories and the measure the total cross section of the H → ττ production background modeling uncertainties are generally uncorre- processes. Then, a two-parameter cross-section fit is pre- lated, with the exception of the normalization factors as sented separating the ggF and VBF production processes. described in Sec. VI. Estimates of the parameters of interest Finally, a three-parameter fit is performed to measure ggF production cross sections in two exclusive regions of phase and the confidence intervals are calculated with the profile space. For the small contribution from H → WW  decays, likelihood ratio [117] test statistic, whereas the test statistic the measurements assume the SM predictions for production q̃0 [117] is used to compute the significances of the cross section and branching ratio. deviations from the background-only hypothesis. A probability model is constructed that describes the The observed (expected) significance of the signal excess relative to the background-only hypothesis computed from mMMC ττ distributions in the 13 signal regions and the event the likelihood fit is 4.4 (4.1) standard deviations, compatible yields in 6 control regions. The latter are included to with a SM Higgs boson with a mass mH ¼ 125 GeV. This constrain the normalizations of the dominant backgrounds. Each signal region is modeled by a product of Poisson result is combined with the result of the search for H → ττ distributions, where each such distribution describes the using data at 7 and 8 TeV center-of-mass energies [15]. The combined observed (expected) significance amounts expected event count in intervals of mMMC ττ . Each control to 6.4 (5.4) standard deviations. In this combination, all region is modeled by a single Poisson distribution that nuisance parameters are treated as uncorrelated between the describes the total expected event count in that region. two analyses. In particular, the dominant Z → ττ back- Signal and background predictions depend on systematic ground is estimated differently, as mentioned in Sec. I. uncertainties, which are parametrized as nuisance param- The parameter σ H→ττ ≡ σ H · BðH → ττÞ is fitted, where eters and are constrained using Gaussian or log-normal σ H is the total cross section of the considered Higgs-boson probability distributions. The latter are used for normali- production processes ggF, VBF, VH and tt̄H, and where zation factors (see Table VI) to ensure that they are always positive. The dependence of the predictions on nuisance BðH → ττÞ is the H → ττ branching fraction. For this parameters related to systematic uncertainties is modeled measurement, the relative contributions from the various with an interpolation approach between yields obtained at Higgs production processes are assumed as predicted by different fixed systematic uncertainty settings. A smoothing the SM and the uncertainties related to the predicted total procedure is applied to remove occasional large local signal cross section are excluded. The measured value of fluctuations in the mMMC distribution templates, which σ H→ττ is 3.77þ0.60 þ0.87 −0.59 ðstatÞ −0.74 ðsystÞ pb, consistent with the ττ encode systematic uncertainties of some background SM prediction, σ H→ττ ¼ 3.46  0.13 pb [100]. The signal SM TABLE VII. Observed event yields and predictions as computed by the fit in the τlep τlep signal regions. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. τlep τlep VBF τlep τlep boosted Loose Tight Low-pττ T High-pττ T Z → ττ 151  13 107  12 2977  90 2687  64 Z → ll 15.1  4.9 20.3  6.6 360  54 236  31 Top 33.0  6.4 25.1  4.5 321  50 189  29 VV 11.8  2.2 10.7  1.5 194.1  8.5 195.3  8.8 Misidentified τ 18.3  9.6 9.6  4.8 209  92 80  35 ggF, H → WW  1.2  0.2 1.4  0.3 11.8  2.6 16.4  1.7 VBF, H → WW  1.7  0.2 4.1  0.5 2.9  0.3 2.9  0.3 ggF, H → ττ 2.6  0.9 1.8  0.9 34.4  9.2 33.8  9.5 VBF, H → ττ 5.3  1.5 11.3  3.0 7.7  2.1 8.2  2.3 WH, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 2.5  0.7 3.1  0.9 ZH, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 1.3  0.4 1.6  0.4 tt̄H, H → ττ < 0.1 0.1  0.1 1.5  0.5 1.2  0.4 Total background 232  13 178  12 4075  61 3408  54 Total signal 8.0  2.2 13.2  3.5 47  12 48  12 Data 237 188 4124 3444 072001-15 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) TABLE VIII. Observed event yields and predictions as computed by the fit in the τlep τhad signal regions. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. τlep τhad VBF τlep τhad boosted Loose Tight Low-pττ T High-pττ T Z → ττ 178  18 323  21 4187  92 5347  82 Z → ll 10.0  3.0 12.7  3.1 130  37 115  16 Top 5.8  1.6 17.9  4.6 121  20 57  10 Misidentified τ 103  16 101  15 1895  80 605  29 Other backgrounds 4.0  1.6 9.3  1.9 115.0  7.8 129.0  8.8 ggF, H → ττ 3.8  1.1 7.1  1.9 62  16 66  22 VBF, H → ττ 7.6  2.2 24.7  6.8 11.9  3.4 14.0  4.0 WH, H → ττ < 0.1 0.1  0.0 3.9  1.1 5.4  1.4 ZH, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 1.8  0.5 2.8  0.7 tt̄H, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 0.1  0.0 0.2  0.1 Total background 301  17 463  21 6448  81 6253  80 Total signal 11.5  3.2 32.0  8.2 80  20 89  26 Data 318 496 6556 6347 TABLE IX. Observed event yields and predictions as computed by the fit in the τhad τhad signal regions. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic components. τhad τhad VBF τhad τhad boosted Loose Tight High-pττ T Low-pττ T High-pττ T Z → ττ 67.3  9.2 100  12 141  12 3250  130 3582  82 Misidentified τ 45.0  5.4 96.4  9.2 20.0  2.9 1870  140 364  53 Other backgrounds 4.4  1.4 11.6  1.7 4.4  0.7 281  21 109.9  9.2 ggF, H → ττ 1.1  0.4 2.0  0.7 3.5  1.0 41  11 48  14 VBF, H → ττ 1.4  0.5 6.4  1.8 11.2  3.0 9.0  3.4 10.7  2.9 WH, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 3.3  0.9 4.4  1.2 ZH, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 2.4  0.7 2.9  0.8 tt̄H, H → ττ < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 1.6  0.5 1.9  0.5 Total background 116.7  9.4 208  12 165  12 5401  78 4057  64 Total signal 2.6  0.8 8.6  2.4 14.9  3.8 57  15 68  18 Data 121 220 179 5455 4103 strength μH→ττ is defined as the ratio of the measured together with a comparison with their nominal values used signal yield to the Standard Model expectation. It is as input to the fit. In both the table and the figure the shown computed by the fit described above, including uncertain- uncertainties are ranked by their fractional impact on the ties in the predicted signal cross section, and is evaluated to measurement of σ H→ττ . To compute the impact for each be 1.09 þ0.18 þ0.26 þ0.16 −0.17 ðstatÞ −0.22 ðsystÞ −0.11 ðtheory systÞ. nuisance parameter, a separate fit is performed again with Tables VII–IX summarize the expected signal and back- the parameter fixed to its fitted value, and the resulting ground yields computed by the fit in each signal region for uncertainty in σ H→ττ is subtracted from the uncertainty the σ H→ττ measurement. The signal event yields are given obtained in the original fit via variance subtraction. The separately for each production process of relevance. Within dominant uncertainties are related to the limited number of the uncertainties, good agreement is observed between the events in the simulated samples, the missing higher-order data and the predicted sum of signal and background QCD corrections to the signal process cross sections, the jet contributions, for a SM Higgs boson of mass mH ¼ energy resolution, the τhad-vis identification and the nor- 125 GeV with the measured value of σ H→ττ reported above. malizations of the Z → ττ and Z → ll backgrounds. Table X shows a summary of the dominant uncertainties Figure 6 also shows that in most cases the fitted parameters in σ H→ττ , grouped by their respective sources. Figure 6 are in agreement with the nominal values, except for shows the systematic uncertainties with the largest impact, the uncertainties related to jet energy resolution and scale. 072001-16 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) Impact = Δσ H → τ τ / σ H → τ τ TABLE X. Summary of different sources of uncertainty in decreasing order of their impact on σ H→ττ . Their observed and −0.1 −0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 expected fractional (%) impacts, both computed by the fit, are given, relative to the σ H→ττ value. Experimental uncertainties in QCD calc. of gg F, p H ≥ 120 GeV T reconstructed objects combine efficiency and energy/momentum scale and resolution uncertainties. Background statistics includes Jet energy resolution, comp. 0 the bin-by-bin statistical uncertainties in the simulated back- grounds as well as statistical uncertainties in misidentified τ QCD calc. of gg F, p H ≥ 60 GeV T backgrounds, which are estimated using data. Background normalization describes the combined impact of all background Z → τ τ norm. factor, boosted cat. normalization uncertainties. QCD calc. of gg F, 1→ 2 jet mig. Impact Δσ=σ H→ττ [%] Source of uncertainty Observed Expected b -mistag rate, comp. 0 Theoretical uncert. in signal þ13.4= − 8.7 þ12.0= − 7.8 QCD calc. of gg F, top quark mass Background statistics þ10.8= − 9.9 þ10.1= − 9.7 Jets and Emiss T þ11.2= − 9.1 þ10.4= − 8.4 Jet energy scale, comp. 7 Background normalization þ6.3= − 4.4 þ6.3 = − 4.4 Misidentified τ þ4.5= − 4.2 þ3.4 = − 3.2 LumiUncCombined Theoretical uncert. in þ4.6= − 3.6 þ5.0 = − 4.0 Z → ll norm. factor, boosted cat. background Hadronic τ decays þ4.4= − 2.9 þ5.5 = − 4.0 Pull Flavor tagging þ3.4= − 3.4 þ3.0 = − 2.3 Normalization Luminosity þ3.3= − 2.4 þ3.1 = − 2.2 ATLAS +1σ Impact −1σ Impact Electrons and muons þ1.2= − 0.9 þ1.1 = − 0.8 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 m H = 125 GeV −1.5 −3 −1−2 −0.5 −1 0 0.5 2 1 3 1.54 1 Total systematic uncert. þ23 = − 20 þ22 = − 19 Pull = θ − θ 0 / Δθ Data statistics 16 15 Total þ28 = − 25 þ27 = − 24 FIG. 6. Fractional impact of systematic uncertainties in σ H→ττ as computed by the fit. The systematic uncertainties are listed in decreasing order of their impact on σ H→ττ on the y axis. The In the case of real di-τ events, the distribution of mMMC ττ is hatched blue and open blue boxes show the variations of σ H→ττ sensitive to the jet-related uncertainties because selected di- referring to the top x axis (impact), as described in the text. τ events in the VBF and boosted categories are charac- The filled circles, referring to the bottom x axis, show the pulls terized by one or more high-pT jets that recoil against the of the fitted nuisance parameters, i.e., the deviations of the two τ-leptons. The main contributions to Emiss T are thus the fitted parameters θ̂ from their nominal values θ0 , normalized to neutrinos in the τ-lepton decays and the impact of the jet their nominal uncertainties Δθ. The black lines show the energy resolution when projected onto the Emiss T direction. uncertainties of the nuisance parameters resulting from the Applying both the jet energy resolution and scale uncer- fit. Several sources of uncertainties such as the jet energy scale tainties causes a shift in the mean jet pT , which therefore and resolution as well as the b-mistag rate are described by their principal components in the fit. The open circles, also translates directly into a shift of the reconstructed Emiss T . referring to the bottom x axis, show the values of the fitted This, in turn, translates into a shift of the reconstructed Z → ττ and Z → ll normalization factors in the boosted mMMC ττ that is constrained by data in the region of the Z → category as listed in Table VI. Their uncertainties do not ττ mass peak. include uncertainties in total simulated cross sections extrapo- Results of the fit when only the data of an individual lated to the selected phase space. channel or of an individual category are used, are shown in Fig. 7. Also shown is the result from the fit and the uncertainty in σ SM H→ττ . All results are consistent with the SM combined signal regions of τhad τhad , τlep τhad and τlep τlep expectations. The simple combination of the individual fit analysis channels, and in Fig. 9, separately for the com- results does not agree exactly with the result of the bined VBF and the combined boosted signal regions. A combined fit because the values of the nuisance parameters weighted combination of the mMMC ττ distributions in all are different. The mMMCττ distributions in all signal regions signal regions is shown in Fig. 10. The events are weighted with background predictions adjusted by the likelihood fit by a factor of lnð1 þ S=BÞ which enhances the events are shown in Figs. 12 and 13 in the Appendix. The mMMC ττ compatible with the signal hypothesis. Here, S=B is the distributions for the predicted signal plus background are expected signal-to-background ratio in the corresponding compared with the data in Fig. 8, separately for the signal region. 072001-17 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) ATLAS s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 ATLAS s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 total stat. SM exp. total ( stat. , syst. ) total stat. SM exp. total ( stat. , syst. ) τhadτhad 2.49 +1.38 ( +0.77 , +1.14 ) −1.18 −0.74 −0.91 Boosted 4.02 +1.54 ( +0.79 , +1.32 ) −1.33 −0.78 −1.07 τlepτhad 3.13 +1.52 ( +0.86 , +1.25 ) −1.33 −0.84 −1.03 VBF 3.34 +1.61 ( +0.90 , +1.34 ) τlepτlep 6.79 +2.80 ( +1.44 , +2.40 ) −1.41 −0.85 −1.12 −2.79 −1.41 −2.41 Combination 3.77 +1.06 ( +0.60 , +0.87 ) Combination 3.77 +1.06 ( +0.60 , +0.87 ) −0.95 −0.59 −0.74 −0.95 −0.59 −0.74 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 σ H →τ τ [pb] σ H →τ τ [pb] (a) (b) FIG. 7. The measured values for σ H→ττ when only the data of (a) individual channels or (b) individual categories are used. Also shown is the result from the combined fit. The total 1σ uncertainty in the measurement is indicated by the black error bars, with the individual contribution from the statistical uncertainty in blue. The theory uncertainty in the predicted signal cross section is shown by the yellow band. ×103 ×103 ×103 5 Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 2.5 ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb− −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb− −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ 4 Z →ττ 3 Z →ττ All τlepτlep SRs Other backgrounds All τlepτhad SRs Other backgrounds All τhadτhad SRs Other backgrounds 2 Misidentified τ Misidentified τ Misidentified τ Uncertainty 3 Uncertainty Uncertainty 1.5 2 2 1 1 0.5 1 Data − Bkg Data − Bkg 100 100 Data − Bkg 100 0 0 0 −100 −100 −100 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] FIG. 8. Distributions of the reconstructed di-τ invariant mass (mMMCττ ) for the sum of (left) all τlep τlep , (center) all τlep τhad and (right) all τhad τhad signal regions (SRs). The bottom panels show the differences between observed data events and expected background events (black points). The observed Higgs-boson signal (μ ¼ 1.09) is shown with the solid red line. Entries with values that would exceed the x- axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The signal and background predictions are determined in the likelihood fit. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. Figure 7 illustrates that the VBF and boosted categories σ ggF þ1.6 H→ττ ¼ 3.1  1.0ðstatÞ −1.3 ðsystÞ pb, in agreement with provide good sensitivity, respectively, to VBF and ggF the predictions from the Standard Model of σ SM VBF;H→ττ ¼ Higgs-boson production. A two-parameter fit is therefore 0.237  0.006 pb and σ ggF;H→ττ ¼ 3.05  0.13 pb [100]. SM performed to determine the cross sections of these pro- The two results are strongly anti-correlated (correlation duction processes by exploiting the sensitivity offered by coefficient of −52%), as can be seen in Fig. 11. the use of the event categories in the analysis of the three ggF The ggF signal provides enough events to measure ggF channels. Two cross-section parameters σ VBFH→ττ and σ H→ττ cross sections in mutually exclusive regions of the ggF are introduced and the data are fitted to these parameters, phase space. Two ggF regions are defined by particle-level separating the vector-boson-mediated VBF process from events with at least one jet where a jet is required to have the fermion-mediated ggF process, while the contributions pT > 30 GeV: events with a Higgs-boson pT of 60 < from other Higgs production processes are set to their pH H T < 120 GeV and events with pT > 120 GeV. A cross- predicted SM values. The two-dimensional 68% and section parameter for each of the two ggF regions is 95% confidence level (C.L.) contours in the plane introduced, along with a parameter for VBF production ggF of σ VBF H→ττ and σ H→ττ are shown in Fig. 11. The best-fit in an inclusive region, and a combined three-parameter fit is þ0.11 values are σ VBF H→ττ ¼ 0.28  0.09ðstatÞ −0.09 ðsystÞ pb and performed using the event categories in the analysis of the 072001-18 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) ×103 Events / 10 GeV Events / 10 GeV ATLAS Data 2015 + 2016 10 ATLAS Data 2015 + 2016 500 −1 H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) −1 H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ All VBF SRs Other backgrounds 8 All boosted SRs Other backgrounds 400 Misidentified τ Misidentified τ Uncertainty Uncertainty 300 6 200 4 100 2 Data − Bkg Data − Bkg 50 200 0 0 −50 −200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 mMMC ττ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] (a) (b) FIG. 9. Distribution of the reconstructed di-τ invariant mass (mMMCττ ) for the sum of (a) all VBF and (b) all boosted signal regions (SRs). The bottom panels show the differences between observed data events and expected background events (black points). The observed Higgs-boson signal (μ ¼ 1.09) is shown with the solid red line. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The signal and background predictions are determined in the likelihood fit. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. three channels. The particle-level definitions of all three Weighted events / 10 GeV Data 2015 + 2016 150 ATLAS H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) phase-space regions closely follow the framework of sim- s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ plified template cross sections [101] where the Higgs-boson All SRs Other backgrounds Misidentified τ rapidity yH is required to satisfy jyH j < 2.5. The ggF and Uncertainty VBF production cross sections outside the respective 100 particle-level region requirements are set to the measured values reported above. Cross sections of other Higgs-boson 50 production processes are set to their SM values. Table XI shows the resulting cross sections along with the SM 4 Data − Bkg 2 0.8 95% CL 0 68% CL Best fit −2 0.6 SM −4 [pb] 50 100 150 200 0.4 mMMC [GeV] →τ τ ττ σ HVBF FIG. 10. Distribution of the reconstructed di-τ invariant mass 0.2 (mMMC ττ ) for the sum of all signal regions (SRs). The contributions of the different SRs are weighted by a factor of lnð1 þ S=BÞ, where 0 S and B are the expected numbers of signal and background events ATLAS in that region, respectively. The bottom panel shows the −0.2 differences between observed data events and expected back- −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 gg F ground events after applying the same weights (black points). The σ H →τ τ [pb] observed Higgs-boson signal (μ ¼ 1.09) is shown with the solid red line. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are FIG. 11. Likelihood contours for the combination of all shown in the last bin of each distribution. The signal and back- channels in the (σ ggF H→ττ , σ H→ττ ) plane. The 68% and 95% C.L. VBF ground predictions are determined in the likelihood fit. The size of contours are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively, for the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertain- mH ¼ 125 GeV. The SM expectation is indicated by a plus ties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. symbol and the best fit to the data is shown as a star. 072001-19 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) TABLE XI. Measurement of the VBF and ggF production cross sections in three mutually exclusive regions of phase space of particle-level events. The number of jets N jets in ggF events comprises all jets with pT > 30 GeV. The cross section of ggF events that fail the particle-level requirements of the two ggF regions is set to the measured σ ggF H→ττ value. Results are shown along with the SM predictions in the respective particle-level regions. The definitions of the regions closely follow the framework of simplified template cross sections [101]. Process Particle-level selection σ [pb] σ SM [pb] ggF N jets ≥ 1, 60 < pH T < 120 GeV, jyH j < 2.5 1.79  0.53ðstatÞ  0.74ðsystÞ 0.40  0.05 ggF N jets ≥ 1, pH T > 120 GeV, jyH j < 2.5 0.12  0.05ðstatÞ  0.05ðsystÞ 0.14  0.03 VBF jyH j < 2.5 0.25  0.08ðstatÞ  0.08ðsystÞ 0.22  0.01 predictions in the respective particle-level region. The Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and measurements in all regions have a precision similar to that FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; of the inclusive ggF and VBF measurements reported above. CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and IX. CONCLUSIONS VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DRF/IRFU, France; SRNSFG, A measurement of total production cross sections of the Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions is presented in the Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF and Benoziyo H → ττ decay channel. The analysis was performed using Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, 36.1 fb−1 of data recorded by the ATLAS pffiffiexperiment ffi at the Morocco; NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and LHC at a center-of-mass energy of s ¼ 13 TeV. All NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of combinations of leptonic and hadronic τ decays were Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, considered. An excess of events over the expected back- Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/ ground from other Standard Model processes was found NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg with an observed (expected) significance of 4.4 (4.1) Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and standard p deviations. ffiffiffi Combined with results using data Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, taken at s of 7 and 8 TeV, the observed (expected) United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. significance amounts to 6.4 (5.4) standard deviations and In addition, individual groups and members have received constitutes an observation of H → ττ decays pffiffiffi by the ATLAS support from BCKDF, CANARIE, CRC and Compute experiment. Using the data taken at s ¼ 13 TeV, the Canada, Canada; COST, ERC, ERDF, Horizon 2020, and pp → H → ττ total cross section is measured to be Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; 3.77þ0.60 þ0.87 −0.59 ðstatÞ −0.74 ðsystÞ pb, for a Higgs boson of mass Investissements d’ Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, France; 125 GeV. A two-dimensional fit was performed to DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales separate the vector-boson-mediated VBF process from the and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the fermion-mediated ggF process. The cross sections Greek NSRF, Greece; BSF-NSF and GIF, Israel; CERCA of the Higgs boson decaying into two τ leptons are measured Programme Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain; The Royal þ0.11 ggF to be σ VBF H→ττ ¼0.280.09ðstatÞ −0.09 ðsystÞpb and σ H→ττ ¼ Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom. The crucial 3.1  1.0ðstatÞ þ1.6 −1.3 ðsystÞ pb, respectively, for the two pro- computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged duction processes. Similarly, a three-dimensional fit was gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 performed in the framework of simplified template cross facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, sections. Results are reported for the VBF cross section in an Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA inclusive phase space and ggF cross sections in two (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), exclusive regions of phase space defined by particle-level PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL requirements on the Higgs-boson pT . All measurements are (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non- consistent with SM predictions. WLCG resource providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [118]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPENDIX: DISTRIBUTIONS OF mMMC ττ IN We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the SIGNAL REGIONS LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. Figures 12 and 13 show the mMMCττ distributions in all We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; signal regions with background predictions adjusted by the YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, likelihood fit. 072001-20 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) Events / GeV Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 6 −1 Z →ττ τhadτhad VBF high-p Tτ SR τ Other backgrounds Misidentified τ Uncertainty 4 2 Data / Bkg 3 2 1 0 50 100 150 200 mτMMC τ [GeV] Events / GeV Events / GeV Events / GeV Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 5 ATLAS H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 5 s =13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ Z →ττ Z →ττ τlepτlep VBF tight SR Z → ll τlepτhad VBF tight SR Other backgrounds τhadτhad VBF tight SR Other backgrounds 4 Top 10 Misidentified τ 4 Misidentified τ Other backgrounds Uncertainty Uncertainty Misidentified τ 3 Uncertainty 3 2 5 2 1 1 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] Events / GeV Events / GeV Events / GeV 8 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) 8 ATLAS H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ 3 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z → ττ 6 τlepτlep VBF loose SR Z → ll τlepτhad VBF loose SR Other backgrounds τhadτhad VBF loose SR Other backgrounds Top 6 Misidentified τ Misidentified τ Other backgrounds Uncertainty Uncertainty Misidentified τ 2 4 Uncertainty 4 2 1 2 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] FIG. 12. Observed and expected mMMC ττ distributions as used in the fit in all signal regions (SRs) in the VBF category for the τlep τlep (left), τlep τhad (middle) and τhad τhad (right) analysis channels. The bottom panels show the ratio of observed data events to expected background events (black points). The observed Higgs-boson signal (μ ¼ 1.09) is shown with the solid red line. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The signal and background predictions are determined in the likelihood fit. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. 072001-21 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) 200 Events / GeV Events / GeV Events / GeV Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 200 Data 2015 + 2016 ATLAS H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ τlepτlep boost. high-p τ τ SR Z → ll 150 τlepτhad boost. high-p τ τ SR Other backgrounds 150 τhadτhad boost. high-pτ τ SR Other backgrounds 100 T Top T Misidentified τ T Misidentified τ Other backgrounds Uncertainty Uncertainty Misidentified τ Uncertainty 100 100 50 50 50 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] Events / GeV Events / GeV Events / GeV 150 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 Data 2015 + 2016 100 ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) ATLAS H → τ τ ( μ = 1.09) 150 ATLAS H → τ τ (μ = 1.09) −1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb−1 Z →ττ τlepτlep boost. low-p Tττ SR Z → ll τlepτhad boost. low-p Tτ τ SR Other backgrounds τhadτhad boost. low-p Tτ τ SR Other backgrounds 80 Top Misidentified τ Misidentified τ Other backgrounds 100 Uncertainty Uncertainty Misidentified τ 100 60 Uncertainty 40 50 50 20 Data / Bkg Data / Bkg Data / Bkg 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] mτMMC τ [GeV] FIG. 13. Observed and expected mMMC ττ distributions as used in the fit in all signal regions (SRs) in the boosted category for the τlep τlep (left), τlep τhad (middle) and τhad τhad (right) analysis channels. The bottom panels show the ratio of observed data events to expected background events (black points). The observed Higgs-boson signal (μ ¼ 1.09) is shown with the solid red line. Entries with values that would exceed the x-axis range are shown in the last bin of each distribution. The signal and background predictions are determined in the likelihood fit. The size of the combined statistical, experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the background is indicated by the hatched bands. [1] ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the [7] P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964). ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012). [8] G. Guralnik, C. Hagen, and T. Kibble, Global Conserva- [2] CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass tion Laws and Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. (1964). Lett. B 716, 30 (2012). [9] P. W. Higgs, Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without [3] S. L. Glashow, Partial-symmetries of weak interactions, massless bosons, Phys. Rev. 145, 1156 (1966). Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961). [10] T. Kibble, Symmetry breaking in non-abelian gauge [4] S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, theories, Phys. Rev. 155, 1554 (1967). 1264 (1967). [11] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of the Higgs boson [5] A. Salam, Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions, Proceed- production and decay rates and coupling strengths using pffiffiffi ings of the 8th Nobel symposium, edited by N. Svartholm, pp collision data at s ¼ 7 and 8 TeV in the ATLAS Almqvist, and Wiskell, Conf. Proc. C680519, 367 (1968). experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 6 (2016). [6] F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of [12] CMS Collaboration, Precise determination of the mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964). the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings 072001-22 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) with the standard model predictions using proton collisions [32] P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with at 7 and 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 212 (2015). shower Monte Carlo algorithms, J. High Energy Phys. 11 [13] ATLAS Collaboration, Study of the spin and parity of the (2004) 040. Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector, [33] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 476 (2015); Erratum, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, computations with parton shower simulations: The Pow- 152 (2016). heg method, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2007) 070. [14] CMS Collaboration, Constraints on the spin-parity and [34] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, A general anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower collisions at 7 and 8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 92, 012004 (2015). Monte Carlo programs: The Powheg BOX, J. High Energy [15] ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence for the Higgs-boson Phys. 06 (2010) 043. Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector, [35] E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 117. Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG [16] CMS Collaboration, Evidence for the direct decay of the approach in the SM and in the MSSM, J. High Energy 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions, Nat. Phys. 10, 557 Phys. 02 (2012) 088. (2014). [36] K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, [17] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Measurements of the NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production, J. High Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on Energy Phys. 10 (2013) 222. its couplings from a combined ATLAS pffiffiffi and CMS analysis [37] K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi, Finite quark- of the LHC pp collision data at s ¼ 7 and 8 TeV, J. High mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG þ MiNLO Higgs Energy Phys. 08 (2016) 045. generator, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2015) 140. [18] CMS Collaboration, Observation of the Higgs boson decay [38] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, to a pair of τ leptons, Phys. Lett. B 779, 283 (2018). O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. [19] ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of Higgs boson pro- Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next- duction in association with a top quark pair at the LHC to-leading order differential cross sections, and their with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 784, 173 (2018). matching to parton shower simulations, J. High Energy [20] CMS Collaboration, Observation of tt̄H Production, Phys. Phys. 07 (2014) 079. Rev. Lett. 120, 231801 (2018). [39] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, A brief [21] ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of H → bb̄ decays and introduction to Pythia 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. VH production with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 178, 852 (2008). 786, 59 (2018). [40] M. Bahr et al., Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. [22] CMS Collaboration, Observation of Higgs Boson Decay to C 58, 639 (2008). Bottom Quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 121801 (2018). [41] J. Bellm et al., Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. [23] ATLAS Collaboration, Search for thepDimuonffiffiffi Decay of Phys. J. C 76, 196 (2016). the Higgs Boson in pp Collisions at s ¼ 13 TeV with [42] J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 051802 (2017). LHC Run II, J. Phys. G 43, 023001 (2016). [24] CMS Collaboration, Search for the Higgs boson pffiffiffi decaying [43] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the Z=γ  boson to two muons in proton-proton collisions at s ¼ 13 TeV, transverse momentum distribution in pp collisions at pffiffiffi arXiv:1807.06325. s ¼ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy [25] ATLAS Collaboration, Test of CP Invariance in vector- Phys. 09 (2014) 145. boson fusion production of the Higgs boson using the [44] J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H.-L. Lai, P. Nadolsky, Optimal Observable method in the ditau decay channel and W.-K. Tung, New generation of parton distributions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 658 (2016). with uncertainties from global QCD analysis, J. High [26] S. Berge, W. Bernreuther, and S. Kirchner, Prospects of Energy Phys. 07 (2002) 012. constraining the Higgs boson’s CP nature in the tau decay [45] R. Ball et al., Parton distributions for the LHC Run II, J. channel at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 92, 096012 (2015). High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 040. [27] ATLAS Collaboration, Modelling Z → ττ processes in [46] R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. ATLAS with τ-embedded Z → μμ data, J. Instrum. 10, Phys. B867, 244 (2013). P09018 (2015). [47] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to 7 TeV [28] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS experiment at the data, CERN Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014. CERN Large Hadron Collider, J. Instrum. 3, S08003 [48] N. Davidson, T. Przedzinski, and Z. Was, PHOTOS (2008). interface in C++: Technical and physics documentation, [29] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Tech- arXiv:1011.0937. nical Design, CERN Reports No. CERN-LHCC-2010-013 [49] C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, F. Herzog, and B. and No. ATLAS-TDR-19, 2010. Mistlberger, Higgs Boson Gluon-Fusion Production in [30] B Abbott et al., Production and integration of the ATLAS QCD at Three Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 212001 (2015). Insertable B-Layer, J. Instrum. 13, T05008 (2018). [50] C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, T. Gehrmann, [31] ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Combined Measure- pffiffiffi F. Herzog, A. Lazopoulos, and B. Mistlberger, High ment of the Higgs Boson Mass in pp Collisions at s ¼ 7 precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments, Phys. boson cross-section at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 05 Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015). (2016) 058. 072001-23 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) [51] S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm, and S. Uccirati, NLO [68] S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A Parton shower algorithm electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production at based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation, J. High hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B 670, 12 (2008). Energy Phys. 03 (2008) 038. [52] C. Anastasiou, R. Boughezal, and F. Petriello, Mixed [69] S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, and F. Siegert, QCD QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production matrix elements þ parton showers: The NLO case, J. High in gluon fusion, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2009) 003. Energy Phys. 04 (2013) 027. [53] M. Ciccolini, A. Denner, and S. Dittmaier, Strong and [70] K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, Electroweak gauge boson Electroweak Corrections to the Production of a Higgs production at hadron colliders through Oðα2S Þ, Phys. Rev. Boson þ2 Jets via Weak Interactions at the Large Hadron D 74, 114017 (2006). Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 161803 (2007). [71] C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, [54] M. Ciccolini, A. Denner, and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak High precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vector-boson gauge boson rapidity distributions at NNLO, Phys. Rev. fusion at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 77, 013002 (2008). D 69, 094008 (2004). [55] P. Bolzoni, F. Maltoni, S.-O. Moch, and M. Zaro, Higgs [72] S. Alioli, S.-O. Moch, and P. Uwer, Hadronic top-quark Boson Production via Vector-Boson Fusion at Next-to- pair-production with one jet and parton showering, J. High Next-to-Leading Order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, Energy Phys. 01 (2012) 137. 011801 (2010). [73] M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A program for the [56] O. Brein, A. Djouadi, and R. Harlander, NNLO QCD calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders, corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2930 (2014). colliders, Phys. Lett. B 579, 149 (2004). [74] S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, NLO single- [57] L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, R. V. Harlander, H. Rzehak, top production matched with shower in POWHEG: s- and and T. J. E. Zirke, Gluon-induced Higgs-strahlung at next- t-channel contributions, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2009) to-leading order QCD, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2013) 111; Erratum, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2010) 11. 078. [75] E. Re, Single-top Wt-channel production matched with [58] A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. Muck, parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur. Phys. J. Electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung off W/Z bo- C 71, 1547 (2011). sons at the Tevatron and the LHC with HAWK, J. High [76] P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, Energy Phys. 03 (2012) 075. Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances [59] W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, B. Plümper, M. in Monte Carlo simulations, J. High Energy Phys. 03 Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Higgs Radiation Off Top Quarks (2013) 015. at the Tevatron and the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 201805 [77] T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 (2001). physics and manual, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026. [60] W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer, B. Plümper, M. [78] P. Z. Skands, Tuning Monte Carlo generators: The Perugia Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, NLO QCD corrections to tt̄H tunes, Phys. Rev. D 82, 074018 (2010). production in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B653, 151 [79] D. J. Lange, The EvtGen particle decay simulation pack- (2003). age, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 462, 152 [61] S. Dawson, L. Orr, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, Next- (2001). to-leading order QCD corrections to pp → tt̄h at the [80] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastruc- CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. D 67, 071503 ture, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 823 (2010). (2003). [81] S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4 Collaboration), Geant4—a [62] S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. Orr, L. Reina, and D. Wack- simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., eroth, Associated Higgs boson production with top quarks Sect. A 506, 250 (2003). at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: NLO QCD correc- [82] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, tions, Phys. Rev. D 68, 034022 (2003). Parton distributions for the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. 63, 189 [63] Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, C. Chen, and L. Guo, (2009). QCD NLO and EW NLO corrections to tt̄H production [83] ATLAS Collaboration, Summary of ATLAS Pythia 8 with top quark decays at hadron collider, Phys. Lett. B 738, tunes, CERN Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2012-003, 1 (2014). 2012. [64] S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao, and [84] ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon energy cali- M. Zaro, Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair bration with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 1 data, hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons, J. High Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3071 (2014). Energy Phys. 06 (2015) 184. [85] ATLAS Collaboration, Electron efficiency measurements [65] T. Gleisberg, S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, S. with the ATLAS detector using the 2015 LHC proton- Schumann, F. Siegert, and J. Winter, Event generation proton collision data, CERN Report No. ATLAS-CONF- with SHERPA 1.1, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2009) 007. 2016-024, 2016. [66] T. Gleisberg and S. Höche, Comix, a new matrix element [86] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger generator, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2008) 039. system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 317 (2017). [67] F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini, Scattering [87] ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction performance Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, of the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collision data at pffiffiffi 111601 (2012). s ¼ 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 292 (2016). 072001-24 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) [88] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet [104] R. Boughezal, X. Liu, F. Petriello, F. J. Tackmann, and clustering algorithm, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063. J. R. Walsh, Combining resummed Higgs predictions [89] ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the across jet bins, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074044 (2014). ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, [105] I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann, Theory uncertainties for Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 490 (2017). Higgs mass and other searches using jet bins, Phys. Rev. D [90] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance ofppile-up mitigation 85, 034011 (2012). ffiffiffi techniques for jets in pp collisions at s ¼ 8 TeV using [106] S. Gangal and F. J. Tackmann, Next-to-leading-order un- the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 581 (2016). certainties in Higgs þ 2 jets from gluon fusion, Phys. Rev. [91] ATLAS Collaboration, Identification and rejection of pile- D 87, 093008 (2013). up jets at high pseudorapidity with the ATLAS detector, [107] L. Lönnblad and S. Prestel, Matching tree-level matrix Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 580 (2017); Erratum 77, 712 (2017). elements with interleaved showers, J. High Energy Phys. [92] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of b-jet identification 03 (2012) 019. in the ATLAS experiment, J. Instrum. 11, P04008 (2016). [108] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the cross-section [93] ATLAS Collaboration, Optimisation of the ATLAS for electroweak productionpofffiffiffi dijets in association with a Z b-tagging performance for the 2016 LHC Run, CERN boson in pp collisions at s ¼ 13 TeV with the ATLAS Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-012, 2016. detector, Phys. Lett. B 775, 206 (2017). [94] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the tau lepton [109] ATLAS Collaboration,pffiffiElectron ffi identification measure- reconstruction and identification performance in the ments in ATLAS using s ¼ 13 TeV data with 50 ns bunch pffiffiffi ATLAS experiment using pp collisions at s ¼ 13 TeV, spacing, CERN Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-041, CERN Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2017-029, 2017. 2015. [95] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Tau Trigger in Run 2, [110] ATLAS Collaboration, pffiffiffi Luminosity determination in pp CERN Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2017-061, 2017. collisions at s ¼ 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the [96] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of missing transverse LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 653 (2016). momentum reconstructionpwith [111] G. Avoni et al., The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity ffiffiffi the ATLAS detector using measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, J. Instrum. 13, proton-proton collisions at s ¼ 13 TeV, arXiv:1802.08168. [97] A. Elagin, P. Murat, A. Pranko, and A. Safonov, A new P07017 (2018). mass reconstruction technique for resonances decaying to [112] ATLAS Collaboration, Reconstruction, Energy Calibra- ττ, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 654, 481 tion, and Identification of Hadronically Decaying Tau (2011). Leptons in the ATLAS Experiment for Run-2 of the [98] R. Ellis et al., Higgs decay to τþ τ− : A possible signature of LHC, CERN Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-045, intermediate mass Higgs bosons at high energy hadron 2015. colliders, Nucl. Phys. B297, 221 (1988). [113] ATLAS Collaboration, Tagging and suppression of pileup [99] ATLAS Collaboration, Observation and measurement of jets with the ATLAS detector, CERN Report No. ATLAS- Higgs boson decays to WW  with the ATLAS detector, CONF-2014-018, 2014. [114] ATLAS Collaboration, Identification and energy calibra- Phys. Rev. D 92, 012006 (2015). tion of hadronically decaying tau pffiffileptons ffi with the ATLAS [100] Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive experiment in pp collisions at s ¼ 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. Observables, Report No. CERN-2011-002, edited by, S. C 75, 303 (2015). Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (LHC [115] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale measurements and Higgs Cross Section Working Group) (CERN, Geneva, their pffiffiffi systematic uncertainties in proton-proton collisions at 2011). s ¼ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 96, [101] LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group et al., Hand- 072002 (2017). book of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the [116] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet calibration and systematic Nature of the Higgs Sector, Report No. CERN-2017-002- uncertainties pffiffiffi for jets reconstructed in the ATLAS detector M (CERN, Geneva, 2016). at s ¼ 13 TeV, CERN Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB- [102] I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, J. R. Walsh, and S. Zuberi, Jet 2015-015, 2015. pT resummation in Higgs production at NNLL0 þ NNLO, [117] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Asymp- Phys. Rev. D 89, 054001 (2014). totic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, [103] X. Liu and F. Petriello, Reducing theoretical uncertainties Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011). for exclusive Higgs-boson plus one-jet production at the [118] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS computing acknowledge- LHC, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094027 (2013). ments, CERN Report No. ATL-GEN-PUB-2016-002. M. Aaboud,34d G. Aad,99 B. Abbott,124 O. Abdinov,13,a B. Abeloos,128 D. K. Abhayasinghe,91 S. H. Abidi,164 O. S. AbouZeid,39 N. L. Abraham,153 H. Abramowicz,158 H. Abreu,157 Y. Abulaiti,6 B. S. Acharya,64a,64b,b S. Adachi,160 L. Adam,97 L. Adamczyk,81a J. Adelman,119 M. Adersberger,112 A. Adiguzel,12c,c T. Adye,141 A. A. Affolder,143 Y. Afik,157 C. Agheorghiesei,27c J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,136f,136a F. Ahmadov,77,d G. Aielli,71a,71b S. Akatsuka,83 T. P. A. Åkesson,94 072001-25 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) E. Akilli,52 A. V. Akimov,108 G. L. Alberghi,23b,23a J. Albert,173 P. Albicocco,49 M. J. Alconada Verzini,86 S. Alderweireldt,117 M. Aleksa,35 I. N. Aleksandrov,77 C. Alexa,27b T. Alexopoulos,10 M. Alhroob,124 B. Ali,138 G. Alimonti,66a J. Alison,36 S. P. Alkire,145 C. Allaire,128 B. M. M. Allbrooke,153 B. W. Allen,127 P. P. Allport,21 A. Aloisio,67a,67b A. Alonso,39 F. Alonso,86 C. Alpigiani,145 A. A. Alshehri,55 M. I. Alstaty,99 B. Alvarez Gonzalez,35 D. Álvarez Piqueras,171 M. G. Alviggi,67a,67b B. T. Amadio,18 Y. Amaral Coutinho,78b A. Ambler,101 L. Ambroz,131 C. Amelung,26 D. Amidei,103 S. P. Amor Dos Santos,136a,136c S. Amoroso,44 C. S. Amrouche,52 C. Anastopoulos,146 L. S. Ancu,52 N. Andari,142 T. Andeen,11 C. F. Anders,59b J. K. Anders,20 K. J. Anderson,36 A. Andreazza,66a,66b V. Andrei,59a C. R. Anelli,173 S. Angelidakis,37 I. Angelozzi,118 A. Angerami,38 A. V. Anisenkov,120b,120a A. Annovi,69a C. Antel,59a M. T. Anthony,146 M. Antonelli,49 D. J. A. Antrim,168 F. Anulli,70a M. Aoki,79 J. A. Aparisi Pozo,171 L. Aperio Bella,35 G. Arabidze,104 J. P. Araque,136a V. Araujo Ferraz,78b R. Araujo Pereira,78b A. T. H. Arce,47 R. E. Ardell,91 F. A. Arduh,86 J-F. Arguin,107 S. Argyropoulos,75 A. J. Armbruster,35 L. J. Armitage,90 A Armstrong,168 O. Arnaez,164 H. Arnold,118 M. Arratia,31 O. Arslan,24 A. Artamonov,109,a G. Artoni,131 S. Artz,97 S. Asai,160 N. Asbah,57 E. M. Asimakopoulou,169 L. Asquith,153 K. Assamagan,29 R. Astalos,28a R. J. Atkin,32a M. Atkinson,170 N. B. Atlay,148 K. Augsten,138 G. Avolio,35 R. Avramidou,58a M. K. Ayoub,15a G. Azuelos,107,e A. E. Baas,59a M. J. Baca,21 H. Bachacou,142 K. Bachas,65a,65b M. Backes,131 P. Bagnaia,70a,70b M. Bahmani,82 H. Bahrasemani,149 A. J. Bailey,171 J. T. Baines,141 M. Bajic,39 C. Bakalis,10 O. K. Baker,180 P. J. Bakker,118 D. Bakshi Gupta,93 S. Balaji,154 E. M. Baldin,120b,120a P. Balek,177 F. Balli,142 W. K. Balunas,133 J. Balz,97 E. Banas,82 A. Bandyopadhyay,24 S. Banerjee,178,f A. A. E. Bannoura,179 L. Barak,158 W. M. Barbe,37 E. L. Barberio,102 D. Barberis,53b,53a M. Barbero,99 T. Barillari,113 M-S. Barisits,35 J. Barkeloo,127 T. Barklow,150 R. Barnea,157 S. L. Barnes,58c B. M. Barnett,141 R. M. Barnett,18 Z. Barnovska-Blenessy,58a A. Baroncelli,72a G. Barone,26 A. J. Barr,131 L. Barranco Navarro,171 F. Barreiro,96 J. Barreiro Guimarães da Costa,15a R. Bartoldus,150 A. E. Barton,87 P. Bartos,28a A. Basalaev,134 A. Bassalat,128 R. L. Bates,55 S. J. Batista,164 S. Batlamous,34e J. R. Batley,31 M. Battaglia,143 M. Bauce,70a,70b F. Bauer,142 K. T. Bauer,168 H. S. Bawa,150,g J. B. Beacham,122 T. Beau,132 P. H. Beauchemin,167 F. Becherer,50 P. Bechtle,24 H. C. Beck,51 H. P. Beck,20,h K. Becker,50 M. Becker,97 C. Becot,44 A. Beddall,12d A. J. Beddall,12a V. A. Bednyakov,77 M. Bedognetti,118 C. P. Bee,152 T. A. Beermann,35 M. Begalli,78b M. Begel,29 A. Behera,152 J. K. Behr,44 A. S. Bell,92 G. Bella,158 L. Bellagamba,23b A. Bellerive,33 M. Bellomo,157 P. Bellos,9 K. Belotskiy,110 N. L. Belyaev,110 O. Benary,158,a D. Benchekroun,34a M. Bender,112 N. Benekos,10 Y. Benhammou,158 E. Benhar Noccioli,180 J. Benitez,75 D. P. Benjamin,47 M. Benoit,52 J. R. Bensinger,26 S. Bentvelsen,118 L. Beresford,131 M. Beretta,49 D. Berge,44 E. Bergeaas Kuutmann,169 N. Berger,5 L. J. Bergsten,26 J. Beringer,18 S. Berlendis,7 N. R. Bernard,100 G. Bernardi,132 C. Bernius,150 F. U. Bernlochner,24 T. Berry,91 P. Berta,97 C. Bertella,15a G. Bertoli,43a,43b I. A. Bertram,87 G. J. Besjes,39 O. Bessidskaia Bylund,179 M. Bessner,44 N. Besson,142 A. Bethani,98 S. Bethke,113 A. Betti,24 A. J. Bevan,90 J. Beyer,113 R. M. Bianchi,135 O. Biebel,112 D. Biedermann,19 R. Bielski,35 K. Bierwagen,97 N. V. Biesuz,69a,69b M. Biglietti,72a T. R. V. Billoud,107 M. Bindi,51 A. Bingul,12d C. Bini,70a,70b S. Biondi,23b,23a M. Birman,177 T. Bisanz,51 J. P. Biswal,158 C. Bittrich,46 D. M. Bjergaard,47 J. E. Black,150 K. M. Black,25 T. Blazek,28a I. Bloch,44 C. Blocker,26 A. Blue,55 U. Blumenschein,90 Dr. Blunier,144a G. J. Bobbink,118 V. S. Bobrovnikov,120b,120a S. S. Bocchetta,94 A. Bocci,47 D. Boerner,179 D. Bogavac,112 A. G. Bogdanchikov,120b,120a C. Bohm,43a V. Boisvert,91 P. Bokan,169 T. Bold,81a A. S. Boldyrev,111 A. E. Bolz,59b M. Bomben,132 M. Bona,90 J. S. Bonilla,127 M. Boonekamp,142 A. Borisov,140 G. Borissov,87 J. Bortfeldt,35 D. Bortoletto,131 V. Bortolotto,71a,71b D. Boscherini,23b M. Bosman,14 J. D. Bossio Sola,30 K. Bouaouda,34a J. Boudreau,135 E. V. Bouhova-Thacker,87 D. Boumediene,37 C. Bourdarios,128 S. K. Boutle,55 A. Boveia,122 J. Boyd,35 D. Boye,32b I. R. Boyko,77 A. J. Bozson,91 J. Bracinik,21 N. Brahimi,99 A. Brandt,8 G. Brandt,179 O. Brandt,59a F. Braren,44 U. Bratzler,161 B. Brau,100 J. E. Brau,127 W. D. Breaden Madden,55 K. Brendlinger,44 L. Brenner,44 R. Brenner,169 S. Bressler,177 B. Brickwedde,97 D. L. Briglin,21 D. Britton,55 D. Britzger,59b I. Brock,24 R. Brock,104 G. Brooijmans,38 T. Brooks,91 W. K. Brooks,144b E. Brost,119 J. H Broughton,21 P. A. Bruckman de Renstrom,82 D. Bruncko,28b A. Bruni,23b G. Bruni,23b L. S. Bruni,118 S. Bruno,71a,71b B. H. Brunt,31 M. Bruschi,23b N. Bruscino,135 P. Bryant,36 L. Bryngemark,44 T. Buanes,17 Q. Buat,35 P. Buchholz,148 A. G. Buckley,55 I. A. Budagov,77 M. K. Bugge,130 F. Bührer,50 O. Bulekov,110 D. Bullock,8 T. J. Burch,119 S. Burdin,88 C. D. Burgard,118 A. M. Burger,5 B. Burghgrave,119 K. Burka,82 S. Burke,141 I. Burmeister,45 J. T. P. Burr,131 V. Büscher,97 E. Buschmann,51 P. Bussey,55 J. M. Butler,25 C. M. Buttar,55 J. M. Butterworth,92 P. Butti,35 W. Buttinger,35 A. Buzatu,155 A. R. Buzykaev,120b,120a G. Cabras,23b,23a S. Cabrera Urbán,171 D. Caforio,138 H. Cai,170 V. M. M. Cairo,2 O. Cakir,4a N. Calace,52 P. Calafiura,18 A. Calandri,99 G. Calderini,132 P. Calfayan,63 G. Callea,40b,40a L. P. Caloba,78b S. Calvente Lopez,96 D. Calvet,37 S. Calvet,37 T. P. Calvet,152 072001-26 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) M. Calvetti,69a,69b R. Camacho Toro,132 S. Camarda,35 P. Camarri,71a,71b D. Cameron,130 R. Caminal Armadans,100 C. Camincher,35 S. Campana,35 M. Campanelli,92 A. Camplani,39 A. Campoverde,148 V. Canale,67a,67b M. Cano Bret,58c J. Cantero,125 T. Cao,158 Y. Cao,170 M. D. M. Capeans Garrido,35 I. Caprini,27b M. Caprini,27b M. Capua,40b,40a R. M. Carbone,38 R. Cardarelli,71a F. C. Cardillo,146 I. Carli,139 T. Carli,35 G. Carlino,67a B. T. Carlson,135 L. Carminati,66a,66b R. M. D. Carney,43a,43b S. Caron,117 E. Carquin,144b S. Carrá,66a,66b G. D. Carrillo-Montoya,35 D. Casadei,32b M. P. Casado,14,i A. F. Casha,164 D. W. Casper,168 R. Castelijn,118 F. L. Castillo,171 V. Castillo Gimenez,171 N. F. Castro,136a,136e A. Catinaccio,35 J. R. Catmore,130 A. Cattai,35 J. Caudron,24 V. Cavaliere,29 E. Cavallaro,14 D. Cavalli,66a M. Cavalli-Sforza,14 V. Cavasinni,69a,69b E. Celebi,12b F. Ceradini,72a,72b L. Cerda Alberich,171 A. S. Cerqueira,78a A. Cerri,153 L. Cerrito,71a,71b F. Cerutti,18 A. Cervelli,23b,23a S. A. Cetin,12b A. Chafaq,34a D Chakraborty,119 S. K. Chan,57 W. S. Chan,118 Y. L. Chan,61a J. D. Chapman,31 B. Chargeishvili,156b D. G. Charlton,21 C. C. Chau,33 C. A. Chavez Barajas,153 S. Che,122 A. Chegwidden,104 S. Chekanov,6 S. V. Chekulaev,165a G. A. Chelkov,77,j M. A. Chelstowska,35 C. Chen,58a C. H. Chen,76 H. Chen,29 J. Chen,58a J. Chen,38 S. Chen,133 S. J. Chen,15c X. Chen,15b,k Y. Chen,80 Y-H. Chen,44 H. C. Cheng,103 H. J. Cheng,15d A. Cheplakov,77 E. Cheremushkina,140 R. Cherkaoui El Moursli,34e E. Cheu,7 K. Cheung,62 L. Chevalier,142 V. Chiarella,49 G. Chiarelli,69a G. Chiodini,65a A. S. Chisholm,35,21 A. Chitan,27b I. Chiu,160 Y. H. Chiu,173 M. V. Chizhov,77 K. Choi,63 A. R. Chomont,128 S. Chouridou,159 Y. S. Chow,118 V. Christodoulou,92 M. C. Chu,61a J. Chudoba,137 A. J. Chuinard,101 J. J. Chwastowski,82 L. Chytka,126 D. Cinca,45 V. Cindro,89 I. A. Cioară,24 A. Ciocio,18 F. Cirotto,67a,67b Z. H. Citron,177 M. Citterio,66a A. Clark,52 M. R. Clark,38 P. J. Clark,48 C. Clement,43a,43b Y. Coadou,99 M. Cobal,64a,64c A. Coccaro,53b,53a J. Cochran,76 H. Cohen,158 A. E. C. Coimbra,177 L. Colasurdo,117 B. Cole,38 A. P. Colijn,118 J. Collot,56 P. Conde Muiño,136a,136b E. Coniavitis,50 S. H. Connell,32b I. A. Connelly,98 S. Constantinescu,27b F. Conventi,67a,l A. M. Cooper-Sarkar,131 F. Cormier,172 K. J. R. Cormier,164 L. D. Corpe,92 M. Corradi,70a,70b E. E. Corrigan,94 F. Corriveau,101,m A. Cortes-Gonzalez,35 M. J. Costa,171 F. Costanza,5 D. Costanzo,146 G. Cottin,31 G. Cowan,91 B. E. Cox,98 J. Crane,98 K. Cranmer,121 S. J. Crawley,55 R. A. Creager,133 G. Cree,33 S. Crépé-Renaudin,56 F. Crescioli,132 M. Cristinziani,24 V. Croft,121 G. Crosetti,40b,40a A. Cueto,96 T. Cuhadar Donszelmann,146 A. R. Cukierman,150 S. Czekierda,82 P. Czodrowski,35 M. J. Da Cunha Sargedas De Sousa,58b C. Da Via,98 W. Dabrowski,81a T. Dado,28a,n S. Dahbi,34e T. Dai,103 F. Dallaire,107 C. Dallapiccola,100 M. Dam,39 G. D’amen,23b,23a J. Damp,97 J. R. Dandoy,133 M. F. Daneri,30 N. P. Dang,178,f N. D Dann,98 M. Danninger,172 V. Dao,35 G. Darbo,53b S. Darmora,8 O. Dartsi,5 A. Dattagupta,127 T. Daubney,44 S. D’Auria,55 W. Davey,24 C. David,44 T. Davidek,139 D. R. Davis,47 E. Dawe,102 I. Dawson,146 K. De,8 R. De Asmundis,67a A. De Benedetti,124 M. De Beurs,118 S. De Castro,23b,23a S. De Cecco,70a,70b N. De Groot,117 P. de Jong,118 H. De la Torre,104 F. De Lorenzi,76 A. De Maria,51,o D. De Pedis,70a A. De Salvo,70a U. De Sanctis,71a,71b M. De Santis,71a,71b A. De Santo,153 K. De Vasconcelos Corga,99 J. B. De Vivie De Regie,128 C. Debenedetti,143 D. V. Dedovich,77 N. Dehghanian,3 M. Del Gaudio,40b,40a J. Del Peso,96 Y. Delabat Diaz,44 D. Delgove,128 F. Deliot,142 C. M. Delitzsch,7 M. Della Pietra,67a,67b D. Della Volpe,52 A. Dell’Acqua,35 L. Dell’Asta,25 M. Delmastro,5 C. Delporte,128 P. A. Delsart,56 D. A. DeMarco,164 S. Demers,180 M. Demichev,77 S. P. Denisov,140 D. Denysiuk,118 L. D’Eramo,132 D. Derendarz,82 J. E. Derkaoui,34d F. Derue,132 P. Dervan,88 K. Desch,24 C. Deterre,44 K. Dette,164 M. R. Devesa,30 P. O. Deviveiros,35 A. Dewhurst,141 S. Dhaliwal,26 F. A. Di Bello,52 A. Di Ciaccio,71a,71b L. Di Ciaccio,5 W. K. Di Clemente,133 C. Di Donato,67a,67b A. Di Girolamo,35 B. Di Micco,72a,72b R. Di Nardo,100 K. F. Di Petrillo,57 R. Di Sipio,164 D. Di Valentino,33 C. Diaconu,99 M. Diamond,164 F. A. Dias,39 T. Dias Do Vale,136a M. A. Diaz,144a J. Dickinson,18 E. B. Diehl,103 J. Dietrich,19 S. Díez Cornell,44 A. Dimitrievska,18 J. Dingfelder,24 F. Dittus,35 F. Djama,99 T. Djobava,156b J. I. Djuvsland,59a M. A. B. Do Vale,78c M. Dobre,27b D. Dodsworth,26 C. Doglioni,94 J. Dolejsi,139 Z. Dolezal,139 M. Donadelli,78d J. Donini,37 A. D’onofrio,90 M. D’Onofrio,88 J. Dopke,141 A. Doria,67a M. T. Dova,86 A. T. Doyle,55 E. Drechsler,51 E. Dreyer,149 T. Dreyer,51 Y. Du,58b F. Dubinin,108 M. Dubovsky,28a A. Dubreuil,52 E. Duchovni,177 G. Duckeck,112 A. Ducourthial,132 O. A. Ducu,107,p D. Duda,113 A. Dudarev,35 A. C. Dudder,97 E. M. Duffield,18 L. Duflot,128 M. Dührssen,35 C. Dülsen,179 M. Dumancic,177 A. E. Dumitriu,27b,q A. K. Duncan,55 M. Dunford,59a A. Duperrin,99 H. Duran Yildiz,4a M. Düren,54 A. Durglishvili,156b D. Duschinger,46 B. Dutta,44 D. Duvnjak,1 M. Dyndal,44 S. Dysch,98 B. S. Dziedzic,82 C. Eckardt,44 K. M. Ecker,113 R. C. Edgar,103 T. Eifert,35 G. Eigen,17 K. Einsweiler,18 T. Ekelof,169 M. El Kacimi,34c R. El Kosseifi,99 V. Ellajosyula,99 M. Ellert,169 F. Ellinghaus,179 A. A. Elliot,90 N. Ellis,35 J. Elmsheuser,29 M. Elsing,35 D. Emeliyanov,141 Y. Enari,160 J. S. Ennis,175 M. B. Epland,47 J. Erdmann,45 A. Ereditato,20 S. Errede,170 M. Escalier,128 C. Escobar,171 O. Estrada Pastor,171 A. I. Etienvre,142 E. Etzion,158 H. Evans,63 A. Ezhilov,134 M. Ezzi,34e F. Fabbri,55 L. Fabbri,23b,23a V. Fabiani,117 G. Facini,92 072001-27 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) R. M. Faisca Rodrigues Pereira,136a R. M. Fakhrutdinov,140 S. Falciano,70a P. J. Falke,5 S. Falke,5 J. Faltova,139 Y. Fang,15a M. Fanti,66a,66b A. Farbin,8 A. Farilla,72a E. M. Farina,68a,68b T. Farooque,104 S. Farrell,18 S. M. Farrington,175 P. Farthouat,35 F. Fassi,34e P. Fassnacht,35 D. Fassouliotis,9 M. Faucci Giannelli,48 A. Favareto,53b,53a W. J. Fawcett,31 L. Fayard,128 O. L. Fedin,134,r W. Fedorko,172 M. Feickert,41 S. Feigl,130 L. Feligioni,99 C. Feng,58b E. J. Feng,35 M. Feng,47 M. J. Fenton,55 A. B. Fenyuk,140 L. Feremenga,8 J. Ferrando,44 A. Ferrari,169 P. Ferrari,118 R. Ferrari,68a D. E. Ferreira de Lima,59b A. Ferrer,171 D. Ferrere,52 C. Ferretti,103 F. Fiedler,97 A. Filipčič,89 F. Filthaut,117 K. D. Finelli,25 M. C. N. Fiolhais,136a,136c,s L. Fiorini,171 C. Fischer,14 W. C. Fisher,104 N. Flaschel,44 I. Fleck,148 P. Fleischmann,103 R. R. M. Fletcher,133 T. Flick,179 B. M. Flierl,112 L. M. Flores,133 L. R. Flores Castillo,61a F. M. Follega,73a,73b N. Fomin,17 G. T. Forcolin,73a,73b A. Formica,142 F. A. Förster,14 A. C. Forti,98 A. G. Foster,21 D. Fournier,128 H. Fox,87 S. Fracchia,146 P. Francavilla,69a,69b M. Franchini,23b,23a S. Franchino,59a D. Francis,35 L. Franconi,130 M. Franklin,57 M. Frate,168 M. Fraternali,68a,68b A. N. Fray,90 D. Freeborn,92 S. M. Fressard-Batraneanu,35 B. Freund,107 W. S. Freund,78b E. M. Freundlich,45 D. C. Frizzell,124 D. Froidevaux,35 J. A. Frost,131 C. Fukunaga,161 E. Fullana Torregrosa,171 T. Fusayasu,114 J. Fuster,171 O. Gabizon,157 A. Gabrielli,23b,23a A. Gabrielli,18 G. P. Gach,81a S. Gadatsch,52 P. Gadow,113 G. Gagliardi,53b,53a L. G. Gagnon,107 C. Galea,27b B. Galhardo,136a,136c E. J. Gallas,131 B. J. Gallop,141 P. Gallus,138 G. Galster,39 R. Gamboa Goni,90 K. K. Gan,122 S. Ganguly,177 J. Gao,58a Y. Gao,88 Y. S. Gao,150,g C. García,171 J. E. García Navarro,171 J. A. García Pascual,15a M. Garcia-Sciveres,18 R. W. Gardner,36 N. Garelli,150 V. Garonne,130 K. Gasnikova,44 A. Gaudiello,53b,53a G. Gaudio,68a I. L. Gavrilenko,108 A. Gavrilyuk,109 C. Gay,172 G. Gaycken,24 E. N. Gazis,10 C. N. P. Gee,141 J. Geisen,51 M. Geisen,97 M. P. Geisler,59a K. Gellerstedt,43a,43b C. Gemme,53b M. H. Genest,56 C. Geng,103 S. Gentile,70a,70b S. George,91 D. Gerbaudo,14 G. Gessner,45 S. Ghasemi,148 M. Ghasemi Bostanabad,173 M. Ghneimat,24 B. Giacobbe,23b S. Giagu,70a,70b N. Giangiacomi,23b,23a P. Giannetti,69a A. Giannini,67a,67b S. M. Gibson,91 M. Gignac,143 D. Gillberg,33 G. Gilles,179 D. M. Gingrich,3,e M. P. Giordani,64a,64c F. M. Giorgi,23b P. F. Giraud,142 P. Giromini,57 G. Giugliarelli,64a,64c D. Giugni,66a F. Giuli,131 M. Giulini,59b S. Gkaitatzis,159 I. Gkialas,9,t E. L. Gkougkousis,14 P. Gkountoumis,10 L. K. Gladilin,111 C. Glasman,96 J. Glatzer,14 P. C. F. Glaysher,44 A. Glazov,44 M. Goblirsch-Kolb,26 J. Godlewski,82 S. Goldfarb,102 T. Golling,52 D. Golubkov,140 A. Gomes,136a,136b,136d R. Goncalves Gama,78a R. Gonçalo,136a G. Gonella,50 L. Gonella,21 A. Gongadze,77 F. Gonnella,21 J. L. Gonski,57 S. González de la Hoz,171 S. Gonzalez-Sevilla,52 L. Goossens,35 P. A. Gorbounov,109 H. A. Gordon,29 B. Gorini,35 E. Gorini,65a,65b A. Gorišek,89 A. T. Goshaw,47 C. Gössling,45 M. I. Gostkin,77 C. A. Gottardo,24 C. R. Goudet,128 D. Goujdami,34c A. G. Goussiou,145 N. Govender,32b,u C. Goy,5 E. Gozani,157 I. Grabowska-Bold,81a P. O. J. Gradin,169 E. C. Graham,88 J. Gramling,168 E. Gramstad,130 S. Grancagnolo,19 V. Gratchev,134 P. M. Gravila,27f F. G. Gravili,65a,65b C. Gray,55 H. M. Gray,18 Z. D. Greenwood,93,v C. Grefe,24 K. Gregersen,94 I. M. Gregor,44 P. Grenier,150 K. Grevtsov,44 N. A. Grieser,124 J. Griffiths,8 A. A. Grillo,143 K. Grimm,150,w S. Grinstein,14,x Ph. Gris,37 J.-F. Grivaz,128 S. Groh,97 E. Gross,177 J. Grosse-Knetter,51 G. C. Grossi,93 Z. J. Grout,92 C. Grud,103 A. Grummer,116 L. Guan,103 W. Guan,178 J. Guenther,35 A. Guerguichon,128 F. Guescini,165a D. Guest,168 R. Gugel,50 B. Gui,122 T. Guillemin,5 S. Guindon,35 U. Gul,55 C. Gumpert,35 J. Guo,58c W. Guo,103 Y. Guo,58a,y Z. Guo,99 R. Gupta,41 S. Gurbuz,12c G. Gustavino,124 B. J. Gutelman,157 P. Gutierrez,124 C. Gutschow,92 C. Guyot,142 M. P. Guzik,81a C. Gwenlan,131 C. B. Gwilliam,88 A. Haas,121 C. Haber,18 H. K. Hadavand,8 N. Haddad,34e A. Hadef,58a S. Hageböck,24 M. Hagihara,166 H. Hakobyan,181,a M. Haleem,174 J. Haley,125 G. Halladjian,104 G. D. Hallewell,99 K. Hamacher,179 P. Hamal,126 K. Hamano,173 A. Hamilton,32a G. N. Hamity,146 K. Han,58a,z L. Han,58a S. Han,15d K. Hanagaki,79,aa M. Hance,143 D. M. Handl,112 B. Haney,133 R. Hankache,132 P. Hanke,59a E. Hansen,94 J. B. Hansen,39 J. D. Hansen,39 M. C. Hansen,24 P. H. Hansen,39 K. Hara,166 A. S. Hard,178 T. Harenberg,179 S. Harkusha,105 P. F. Harrison,175 N. M. Hartmann,112 Y. Hasegawa,147 A. Hasib,48 S. Hassani,142 S. Haug,20 R. Hauser,104 L. Hauswald,46 L. B. Havener,38 M. Havranek,138 C. M. Hawkes,21 R. J. Hawkings,35 D. Hayden,104 C. Hayes,152 C. P. Hays,131 J. M. Hays,90 H. S. Hayward,88 S. J. Haywood,141 M. P. Heath,48 V. Hedberg,94 L. Heelan,8 S. Heer,24 K. K. Heidegger,50 J. Heilman,33 S. Heim,44 T. Heim,18 B. Heinemann,44,bb J. J. Heinrich,112 L. Heinrich,121 C. Heinz,54 J. Hejbal,137 L. Helary,35 A. Held,172 S. Hellesund,130 S. Hellman,43a,43b C. Helsens,35 R. C. W. Henderson,87 Y. Heng,178 S. Henkelmann,172 A. M. Henriques Correia,35 G. H. Herbert,19 H. Herde,26 V. Herget,174 Y. Hernández Jiménez,32c H. Herr,97 M. G. Herrmann,112 G. Herten,50 R. Hertenberger,112 L. Hervas,35 T. C. Herwig,133 G. G. Hesketh,92 N. P. Hessey,165a J. W. Hetherly,41 S. Higashino,79 E. Higón-Rodriguez,171 K. Hildebrand,36 E. Hill,173 J. C. Hill,31 K. K. Hill,29 K. H. Hiller,44 S. J. Hillier,21 M. Hils,46 I. Hinchliffe,18 M. Hirose,129 D. Hirschbuehl,179 B. Hiti,89 O. Hladik,137 D. R. Hlaluku,32c X. Hoad,48 J. Hobbs,152 N. Hod,165a M. C. Hodgkinson,146 A. Hoecker,35 M. R. Hoeferkamp,116 F. Hoenig,112 D. Hohn,24 072001-28 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) D. Hohov,128 T. R. Holmes,36 M. Holzbock,112 M. Homann,45 S. Honda,166 T. Honda,79 T. M. Hong,135 A. Hönle,113 B. H. Hooberman,170 W. H. Hopkins,127 Y. Horii,115 P. Horn,46 A. J. Horton,149 L. A. Horyn,36 J-Y. Hostachy,56 A. Hostiuc,145 S. Hou,155 A. Hoummada,34a J. Howarth,98 J. Hoya,86 M. Hrabovsky,126 I. Hristova,19 J. Hrivnac,128 A. Hrynevich,106 T. Hryn’ova,5 P. J. Hsu,62 S.-C. Hsu,145 Q. Hu,29 S. Hu,58c Y. Huang,15a Z. Hubacek,138 F. Hubaut,99 M. Huebner,24 F. Huegging,24 T. B. Huffman,131 E. W. Hughes,38 M. Huhtinen,35 R. F. H. Hunter,33 P. Huo,152 A. M. Hupe,33 N. Huseynov,77,d J. Huston,104 J. Huth,57 R. Hyneman,103 G. Iacobucci,52 G. Iakovidis,29 I. Ibragimov,148 L. Iconomidou-Fayard,128 Z. Idrissi,34e P. Iengo,35 R. Ignazzi,39 O. Igonkina,118,cc R. Iguchi,160 T. Iizawa,52 Y. Ikegami,79 M. Ikeno,79 D. Iliadis,159 N. Ilic,150 F. Iltzsche,46 G. Introzzi,68a,68b M. Iodice,72a K. Iordanidou,38 V. Ippolito,70a,70b M. F. Isacson,169 N. Ishijima,129 M. Ishino,160 M. Ishitsuka,162 W. Islam,125 C. Issever,131 S. Istin,157 F. Ito,166 J. M. Iturbe Ponce,61a R. Iuppa,73a,73b A. Ivina,177 H. Iwasaki,79 J. M. Izen,42 V. Izzo,67a P. Jacka,137 P. Jackson,1 R. M. Jacobs,24 V. Jain,2 G. Jäkel,179 K. B. Jakobi,97 K. Jakobs,50 S. Jakobsen,74 T. Jakoubek,137 D. O. Jamin,125 D. K. Jana,93 R. Jansky,52 J. Janssen,24 M. Janus,51 P. A. Janus,81a G. Jarlskog,94 N. Javadov,77,d T. Javůrek,35 M. Javurkova,50 F. Jeanneau,142 L. Jeanty,18 J. Jejelava,156a,dd A. Jelinskas,175 P. Jenni,50,ee J. Jeong,44 N. Jeong,44 S. Jézéquel,5 H. Ji,178 J. Jia,152 H. Jiang,76 Y. Jiang,58a Z. Jiang,150,ff S. Jiggins,50 F. A. Jimenez Morales,37 J. Jimenez Pena,171 S. Jin,15c A. Jinaru,27b O. Jinnouchi,162 H. Jivan,32c P. Johansson,146 K. A. Johns,7 C. A. Johnson,63 W. J. Johnson,145 K. Jon-And,43a,43b R. W. L. Jones,87 S. D. Jones,153 S. Jones,7 T. J. Jones,88 J. Jongmanns,59a P. M. Jorge,136a,136b J. Jovicevic,165a X. Ju,18 J. J. Junggeburth,113 A. Juste Rozas,14,x A. Kaczmarska,82 M. Kado,128 H. Kagan,122 M. Kagan,150 T. Kaji,176 E. Kajomovitz,157 C. W. Kalderon,94 A. Kaluza,97 S. Kama,41 A. Kamenshchikov,140 L. Kanjir,89 Y. Kano,160 V. A. Kantserov,110 J. Kanzaki,79 B. Kaplan,121 L. S. Kaplan,178 D. Kar,32c M. J. Kareem,165b E. Karentzos,10 S. N. Karpov,77 Z. M. Karpova,77 V. Kartvelishvili,87 A. N. Karyukhin,140 L. Kashif,178 R. D. Kass,122 A. Kastanas,43a,43b Y. Kataoka,160 C. Kato,58d,58c J. Katzy,44 K. Kawade,80 K. Kawagoe,85 T. Kawamoto,160 G. Kawamura,51 E. F. Kay,88 V. F. Kazanin,120b,120a R. Keeler,173 R. Kehoe,41 J. S. Keller,33 E. Kellermann,94 J. J. Kempster,21 J. Kendrick,21 O. Kepka,137 S. Kersten,179 B. P. Kerševan,89 R. A. Keyes,101 M. Khader,170 F. Khalil-Zada,13 A. Khanov,125 A. G. Kharlamov,120b,120a T. Kharlamova,120b,120a E. E. Khoda,172 A. Khodinov,163 T. J. Khoo,52 E. Khramov,77 J. Khubua,156b S. Kido,80 M. Kiehn,52 C. R. Kilby,91 Y. K. Kim,36 N. Kimura,64a,64c O. M. Kind,19 B. T. King,88 D. Kirchmeier,46 J. Kirk,141 A. E. Kiryunin,113 T. Kishimoto,160 D. Kisielewska,81a V. Kitali,44 O. Kivernyk,5 E. Kladiva,28b,a T. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus,50 M. H. Klein,103 M. Klein,88 U. Klein,88 K. Kleinknecht,97 P. Klimek,119 A. Klimentov,29 R. Klingenberg,45,a T. Klingl,24 T. Klioutchnikova,35 F. F. Klitzner,112 P. Kluit,118 S. Kluth,113 E. Kneringer,74 E. B. F. G. Knoops,99 A. Knue,50 A. Kobayashi,160 D. Kobayashi,85 T. Kobayashi,160 M. Kobel,46 M. Kocian,150 P. Kodys,139 P. T. Koenig,24 T. Koffas,33 E. Koffeman,118 N. M. Köhler,113 T. Koi,150 M. Kolb,59b I. Koletsou,5 T. Kondo,79 N. Kondrashova,58c K. Köneke,50 A. C. König,117 T. Kono,79 R. Konoplich,121,gg V. Konstantinides,92 N. Konstantinidis,92 B. Konya,94 R. Kopeliansky,63 S. Koperny,81a K. Korcyl,82 K. Kordas,159 G. Koren,158 A. Korn,92 I. Korolkov,14 E. V. Korolkova,146 N. Korotkova,111 O. Kortner,113 S. Kortner,113 T. Kosek,139 V. V. Kostyukhin,24 A. Kotwal,47 A. Koulouris,10 A. Kourkoumeli-Charalampidi,68a,68b C. Kourkoumelis,9 E. Kourlitis,146 V. Kouskoura,29 A. B. Kowalewska,82 R. Kowalewski,173 T. Z. Kowalski,81a C. Kozakai,160 W. Kozanecki,142 A. S. Kozhin,140 V. A. Kramarenko,111 G. Kramberger,89 D. Krasnopevtsev,58a A. Krasznahorkay,35 D. Krauss,113 J. A. Kremer,81a J. Kretzschmar,88 P. Krieger,164 K. Krizka,18 K. Kroeninger,45 H. Kroha,113 J. Kroll,137 J. Kroll,133 J. Krstic,16 U. Kruchonak,77 H. Krüger,24 N. Krumnack,76 M. C. Kruse,47 T. Kubota,102 S. Kuday,4b J. T. Kuechler,179 S. Kuehn,35 A. Kugel,59a F. Kuger,174 T. Kuhl,44 V. Kukhtin,77 R. Kukla,99 Y. Kulchitsky,105 S. Kuleshov,144b Y. P. Kulinich,170 M. Kuna,56 T. Kunigo,83 A. Kupco,137 T. Kupfer,45 O. Kuprash,158 H. Kurashige,80 L. L. Kurchaninov,165a Y. A. Kurochkin,105 M. G. Kurth,15d E. S. Kuwertz,35 M. Kuze,162 J. Kvita,126 T. Kwan,101 A. La Rosa,113 J. L. La Rosa Navarro,78d L. La Rotonda,40b,40a F. La Ruffa,40b,40a C. Lacasta,171 F. Lacava,70a,70b J. Lacey,44 D. P. J. Lack,98 H. Lacker,19 D. Lacour,132 E. Ladygin,77 R. Lafaye,5 B. Laforge,132 T. Lagouri,32c S. Lai,51 S. Lammers,63 W. Lampl,7 E. Lançon,29 U. Landgraf,50 M. P. J. Landon,90 M. C. Lanfermann,52 V. S. Lang,44 J. C. Lange,14 R. J. Langenberg,35 A. J. Lankford,168 F. Lanni,29 K. Lantzsch,24 A. Lanza,68a A. Lapertosa,53b,53a S. Laplace,132 J. F. Laporte,142 T. Lari,66a F. Lasagni Manghi,23b,23a M. Lassnig,35 T. S. Lau,61a A. Laudrain,128 M. Lavorgna,67a,67b A. T. Law,143 M. Lazzaroni,66a,66b B. Le,102 O. Le Dortz,132 E. Le Guirriec,99 E. P. Le Quilleuc,142 M. LeBlanc,7 T. LeCompte,6 F. Ledroit-Guillon,56 C. A. Lee,29 G. R. Lee,144a L. Lee,57 S. C. Lee,155 B. Lefebvre,101 M. Lefebvre,173 F. Legger,112 C. Leggett,18 K. Lehmann,149 N. Lehmann,179 G. Lehmann Miotto,35 W. A. Leight,44 A. Leisos,159,hh M. A. L. Leite,78d R. Leitner,139 D. Lellouch,177 B. Lemmer,51 K. J. C. Leney,92 T. Lenz,24 B. Lenzi,35 072001-29 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) R. Leone,7 S. Leone,69a C. Leonidopoulos,48 G. Lerner,153 C. Leroy,107 R. Les,164 A. A. J. Lesage,142 C. G. Lester,31 M. Levchenko,134 J. Levêque,5 D. Levin,103 L. J. Levinson,177 D. Lewis,90 B. Li,103 C-Q. Li,58a,ii H. Li,58b L. Li,58c M. Li,15a Q. Li,15d Q. Y. Li,58a S. Li,58d,58c X. Li,58c Y. Li,148 Z. Liang,15a B. Liberti,71a A. Liblong,164 K. Lie,61c S. Liem,118 A. Limosani,154 C. Y. Lin,31 K. Lin,104 T. H. Lin,97 R. A. Linck,63 J. H. Lindon,21 B. E. Lindquist,152 A. L. Lionti,52 E. Lipeles,133 A. Lipniacka,17 M. Lisovyi,59b T. M. Liss,170,jj A. Lister,172 A. M. Litke,143 J. D. Little,8 B. Liu,76 B. L Liu,6 H. B. Liu,29 H. Liu,103 J. B. Liu,58a J. K. K. Liu,131 K. Liu,132 M. Liu,58a P. Liu,18 Y. Liu,15a Y. L. Liu,58a Y. W. Liu,58a M. Livan,68a,68b A. Lleres,56 J. Llorente Merino,15a S. L. Lloyd,90 C. Y. Lo,61b F. Lo Sterzo,41 E. M. Lobodzinska,44 P. Loch,7 T. Lohse,19 K. Lohwasser,146 M. Lokajicek,137 B. A. Long,25 J. D. Long,170 R. E. Long,87 L. Longo,65a,65b K. A. Looper,122 J. A. Lopez,144b I. Lopez Paz,14 A. Lopez Solis,146 J. Lorenz,112 N. Lorenzo Martinez,5 M. Losada,22 P. J. Lösel,112 A. Lösle,50 X. Lou,44 X. Lou,15a A. Lounis,128 J. Love,6 P. A. Love,87 J. J. Lozano Bahilo,171 H. Lu,61a M. Lu,58a N. Lu,103 Y. J. Lu,62 H. J. Lubatti,145 C. Luci,70a,70b A. Lucotte,56 C. Luedtke,50 F. Luehring,63 I. Luise,132 L. Luminari,70a B. Lund-Jensen,151 M. S. Lutz,100 P. M. Luzi,132 D. Lynn,29 R. Lysak,137 E. Lytken,94 F. Lyu,15a V. Lyubushkin,77 H. Ma,29 L. L. Ma,58b Y. Ma,58b G. Maccarrone,49 A. Macchiolo,113 C. M. Macdonald,146 J. Machado Miguens,133,136b D. Madaffari,171 R. Madar,37 W. F. Mader,46 A. Madsen,44 N. Madysa,46 J. Maeda,80 K. Maekawa,160 S. Maeland,17 T. Maeno,29 A. S. Maevskiy,111 V. Magerl,50 C. Maidantchik,78b T. Maier,112 A. Maio,136a,136b,136d O. Majersky,28a S. Majewski,127 Y. Makida,79 N. Makovec,128 B. Malaescu,132 Pa. Malecki,82 V. P. Maleev,134 F. Malek,56 U. Mallik,75 D. Malon,6 C. Malone,31 S. Maltezos,10 S. Malyukov,35 J. Mamuzic,171 G. Mancini,49 I. Mandić,89 J. Maneira,136a L. Manhaes de Andrade Filho,78a J. Manjarres Ramos,46 K. H. Mankinen,94 A. Mann,112 A. Manousos,74 B. Mansoulie,142 J. D. Mansour,15a M. Mantoani,51 S. Manzoni,66a,66b A. Marantis,159 G. Marceca,30 L. March,52 L. Marchese,131 G. Marchiori,132 M. Marcisovsky,137 C. A. Marin Tobon,35 M. Marjanovic,37 D. E. Marley,103 F. Marroquim,78b Z. Marshall,18 M. U. F Martensson,169 S. Marti-Garcia,171 C. B. Martin,122 T. A. Martin,175 V. J. Martin,48 B. Martin dit Latour,17 M. Martinez,14,x V. I. Martinez Outschoorn,100 S. Martin-Haugh,141 V. S. Martoiu,27b A. C. Martyniuk,92 A. Marzin,35 L. Masetti,97 T. Mashimo,160 R. Mashinistov,108 J. Masik,98 A. L. Maslennikov,120b,120a L. H. Mason,102 L. Massa,71a,71b P. Massarotti,67a,67b P. Mastrandrea,5 A. Mastroberardino,40b,40a T. Masubuchi,160 P. Mättig,179 J. Maurer,27b B. Maček,89 S. J. Maxfield,88 D. A. Maximov,120b,120a R. Mazini,155 I. Maznas,159 S. M. Mazza,143 N. C. Mc Fadden,116 G. Mc Goldrick,164 S. P. Mc Kee,103 A. McCarn,103 T. G. McCarthy,113 L. I. McClymont,92 E. F. McDonald,102 J. A. Mcfayden,35 G. Mchedlidze,51 M. A. McKay,41 K. D. McLean,173 S. J. McMahon,141 P. C. McNamara,102 C. J. McNicol,175 R. A. McPherson,173,m J. E. Mdhluli,32c Z. A. Meadows,100 S. Meehan,145 T. M. Megy,50 S. Mehlhase,112 A. Mehta,88 T. Meideck,56 B. Meirose,42 D. Melini,171,kk B. R. Mellado Garcia,32c J. D. Mellenthin,51 M. Melo,28a F. Meloni,44 A. Melzer,24 S. B. Menary,98 E. D. Mendes Gouveia,136a L. Meng,88 X. T. Meng,103 A. Mengarelli,23b,23a S. Menke,113 E. Meoni,40b,40a S. Mergelmeyer,19 C. Merlassino,20 P. Mermod,52 L. Merola,67a,67b C. Meroni,66a F. S. Merritt,36 A. Messina,70a,70b J. Metcalfe,6 A. S. Mete,168 C. Meyer,133 J. Meyer,157 J-P. Meyer,142 H. Meyer Zu Theenhausen,59a F. Miano,153 R. P. Middleton,141 L. Mijović,48 G. Mikenberg,177 M. Mikestikova,137 M. Mikuž,89 M. Milesi,102 A. Milic,164 D. A. Millar,90 D. W. Miller,36 A. Milov,177 D. A. Milstead,43a,43b A. A. Minaenko,140 M. Miñano Moya,171 I. A. Minashvili,156b A. I. Mincer,121 B. Mindur,81a M. Mineev,77 Y. Minegishi,160 Y. Ming,178 L. M. Mir,14 A. Mirto,65a,65b K. P. Mistry,133 T. Mitani,176 J. Mitrevski,112 V. A. Mitsou,171 A. Miucci,20 P. S. Miyagawa,146 A. Mizukami,79 J. U. Mjörnmark,94 T. Mkrtchyan,181 M. Mlynarikova,139 T. Moa,43a,43b K. Mochizuki,107 P. Mogg,50 S. Mohapatra,38 S. Molander,43a,43b R. Moles-Valls,24 M. C. Mondragon,104 K. Mönig,44 J. Monk,39 E. Monnier,99 A. Montalbano,149 J. Montejo Berlingen,35 F. Monticelli,86 S. Monzani,66a N. Morange,128 D. Moreno,22 M. Moreno Llácer,35 P. Morettini,53b M. Morgenstern,118 S. Morgenstern,46 D. Mori,149 M. Morii,57 M. Morinaga,176 V. Morisbak,130 A. K. Morley,35 G. Mornacchi,35 A. P. Morris,92 J. D. Morris,90 L. Morvaj,152 P. Moschovakos,10 M. Mosidze,156b H. J. Moss,146 J. Moss,150,ll K. Motohashi,162 R. Mount,150 E. Mountricha,35 E. J. W. Moyse,100 S. Muanza,99 F. Mueller,113 J. Mueller,135 R. S. P. Mueller,112 D. Muenstermann,87 G. A. Mullier,20 F. J. Munoz Sanchez,98 P. Murin,28b W. J. Murray,175,141 A. Murrone,66a,66b M. Muškinja,89 C. Mwewa,32a A. G. Myagkov,140,mm J. Myers,127 M. Myska,138 B. P. Nachman,18 O. Nackenhorst,45 K. Nagai,131 K. Nagano,79 Y. Nagasaka,60 M. Nagel,50 E. Nagy,99 A. M. Nairz,35 Y. Nakahama,115 K. Nakamura,79 T. Nakamura,160 I. Nakano,123 H. Nanjo,129 F. Napolitano,59a R. F. Naranjo Garcia,44 R. Narayan,11 D. I. Narrias Villar,59a I. Naryshkin,134 T. Naumann,44 G. Navarro,22 R. Nayyar,7 H. A. Neal,103,a P. Y. Nechaeva,108 T. J. Neep,142 A. Negri,68a,68b M. Negrini,23b S. Nektarijevic,117 C. Nellist,51 M. E. Nelson,131 S. Nemecek,137 P. Nemethy,121 M. Nessi,35,nn M. S. Neubauer,170 M. Neumann,179 P. R. Newman,21 072001-30 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) T. Y. Ng,61c Y. S. Ng,19 H. D. N. Nguyen,99 T. Nguyen Manh,107 E. Nibigira,37 R. B. Nickerson,131 R. Nicolaidou,142 D. S. Nielsen,39 J. Nielsen,143 N. Nikiforou,11 V. Nikolaenko,140,mm I. Nikolic-Audit,132 K. Nikolopoulos,21 P. Nilsson,29 Y. Ninomiya,79 A. Nisati,70a N. Nishu,58c R. Nisius,113 I. Nitsche,45 T. Nitta,176 T. Nobe,160 Y. Noguchi,83 M. Nomachi,129 I. Nomidis,132 M. A. Nomura,29 T. Nooney,90 M. Nordberg,35 N. Norjoharuddeen,131 T. Novak,89 O. Novgorodova,46 R. Novotny,138 L. Nozka,126 K. Ntekas,168 E. Nurse,92 F. Nuti,102 F. G. Oakham,33,e H. Oberlack,113 T. Obermann,24 J. Ocariz,132 A. Ochi,80 I. Ochoa,38 J. P. Ochoa-Ricoux,144a K. O’Connor,26 S. Oda,85 S. Odaka,79 S. Oerdek,51 A. Oh,98 S. H. Oh,47 C. C. Ohm,151 H. Oide,53b,53a M. L. Ojeda,164 H. Okawa,166 Y. Okazaki,83 Y. Okumura,160 T. Okuyama,79 A. Olariu,27b L. F. Oleiro Seabra,136a S. A. Olivares Pino,144a D. Oliveira Damazio,29 J. L. Oliver,1 M. J. R. Olsson,36 A. Olszewski,82 J. Olszowska,82 D. C. O’Neil,149 A. Onofre,136a,136e K. Onogi,115 P. U. E. Onyisi,11 H. Oppen,130 M. J. Oreglia,36 G. E. Orellana,86 Y. Oren,158 D. Orestano,72a,72b E. C. Orgill,98 N. Orlando,61b A. A. O’Rourke,44 R. S. Orr,164 B. Osculati,53b,53a,a V. O’Shea,55 R. Ospanov,58a G. Otero y Garzon,30 H. Otono,85 M. Ouchrif,34d F. Ould-Saada,130 A. Ouraou,142 Q. Ouyang,15a M. Owen,55 R. E. Owen,21 V. E. Ozcan,12c N. Ozturk,8 J. Pacalt,126 H. A. Pacey,31 K. Pachal,149 A. Pacheco Pages,14 L. Pacheco Rodriguez,142 C. Padilla Aranda,14 S. Pagan Griso,18 M. Paganini,180 G. Palacino,63 S. Palazzo,40b,40a S. Palestini,35 M. Palka,81b D. Pallin,37 I. Panagoulias,10 C. E. Pandini,35 J. G. Panduro Vazquez,91 P. Pani,35 G. Panizzo,64a,64c L. Paolozzi,52 T. D. Papadopoulou,10 K. Papageorgiou,9,t A. Paramonov,6 D. Paredes Hernandez,61b S. R. Paredes Saenz,131 B. Parida,163 A. J. Parker,87 K. A. Parker,44 M. A. Parker,31 F. Parodi,53b,53a J. A. Parsons,38 U. Parzefall,50 V. R. Pascuzzi,164 J. M. P. Pasner,143 E. Pasqualucci,70a S. Passaggio,53b F. Pastore,91 P. Pasuwan,43a,43b S. Pataraia,97 J. R. Pater,98 A. Pathak,178,f T. Pauly,35 B. Pearson,113 M. Pedersen,130 L. Pedraza Diaz,117 R. Pedro,136a,136b S. V. Peleganchuk,120b,120a O. Penc,137 C. Peng,15d H. Peng,58a B. S. Peralva,78a M. M. Perego,142 A. P. Pereira Peixoto,136a D. V. Perepelitsa,29 F. Peri,19 L. Perini,66a,66b H. Pernegger,35 S. Perrella,67a,67b V. D. Peshekhonov,77,a K. Peters,44 R. F. Y. Peters,98 B. A. Petersen,35 T. C. Petersen,39 E. Petit,56 A. Petridis,1 C. Petridou,159 P. Petroff,128 M. Petrov,131 F. Petrucci,72a,72b M. Pettee,180 N. E. Pettersson,100 A. Peyaud,142 R. Pezoa,144b T. Pham,102 F. H. Phillips,104 P. W. Phillips,141 M. W. Phipps,170 G. Piacquadio,152 E. Pianori,18 A. Picazio,100 M. A. Pickering,131 R. H. Pickles,98 R. Piegaia,30 J. E. Pilcher,36 A. D. Pilkington,98 M. Pinamonti,71a,71b J. L. Pinfold,3 M. Pitt,177 M.-A. Pleier,29 V. Pleskot,139 E. Plotnikova,77 D. Pluth,76 P. Podberezko,120b,120a R. Poettgen,94 R. Poggi,52 L. Poggioli,128 I. Pogrebnyak,104 D. Pohl,24 I. Pokharel,51 G. Polesello,68a A. Poley,18 A. Policicchio,70a,70b R. Polifka,35 A. Polini,23b C. S. Pollard,44 V. Polychronakos,29 D. Ponomarenko,110 L. Pontecorvo,35 G. A. Popeneciu,27d D. M. Portillo Quintero,132 S. Pospisil,138 K. Potamianos,44 I. N. Potrap,77 C. J. Potter,31 H. Potti,11 T. Poulsen,94 J. Poveda,35 T. D. Powell,146 M. E. Pozo Astigarraga,35 P. Pralavorio,99 S. Prell,76 D. Price,98 M. Primavera,65a S. Prince,101 N. Proklova,110 K. Prokofiev,61c F. Prokoshin,144b S. Protopopescu,29 J. Proudfoot,6 M. Przybycien,81a A. Puri,170 P. Puzo,128 J. Qian,103 Y. Qin,98 A. Quadt,51 M. Queitsch-Maitland,44 A. Qureshi,1 P. Rados,102 F. Ragusa,66a,66b G. Rahal,95 J. A. Raine,52 S. Rajagopalan,29 A. Ramirez Morales,90 T. Rashid,128 S. Raspopov,5 M. G. Ratti,66a,66b D. M. Rauch,44 F. Rauscher,112 S. Rave,97 B. Ravina,146 I. Ravinovich,177 J. H. Rawling,98 M. Raymond,35 A. L. Read,130 N. P. Readioff,56 M. Reale,65a,65b D. M. Rebuzzi,68a,68b A. Redelbach,174 G. Redlinger,29 R. Reece,143 R. G. Reed,32c K. Reeves,42 L. Rehnisch,19 J. Reichert,133 D. Reikher,158 A. Reiss,97 C. Rembser,35 H. Ren,15d M. Rescigno,70a S. Resconi,66a E. D. Resseguie,133 S. Rettie,172 E. Reynolds,21 O. L. Rezanova,120b,120a P. Reznicek,139 E. Ricci,73a,73b R. Richter,113 S. Richter,44 E. Richter-Was,81b O. Ricken,24 M. Ridel,132 P. Rieck,113 C. J. Riegel,179 O. Rifki,44 M. Rijssenbeek,152 A. Rimoldi,68a,68b M. Rimoldi,20 L. Rinaldi,23b G. Ripellino,151 B. Ristić,87 E. Ritsch,35 I. Riu,14 J. C. Rivera Vergara,144a F. Rizatdinova,125 E. Rizvi,90 C. Rizzi,14 R. T. Roberts,98 S. H. Robertson,101,m D. Robinson,31 J. E. M. Robinson,44 A. Robson,55 E. Rocco,97 C. Roda,69a,69b Y. Rodina,99 S. Rodriguez Bosca,171 A. Rodriguez Perez,14 D. Rodriguez Rodriguez,171 A. M. Rodríguez Vera,165b S. Roe,35 C. S. Rogan,57 O. Røhne,130 R. Röhrig,113 C. P. A. Roland,63 J. Roloff,57 A. Romaniouk,110 M. Romano,23b,23a N. Rompotis,88 M. Ronzani,121 L. Roos,132 S. Rosati,70a K. Rosbach,50 P. Rose,143 N-A. Rosien,51 B. J. Rosser,133 E. Rossi,44 E. Rossi,72a,72b E. Rossi,67a,67b L. P. Rossi,53b L. Rossini,66a,66b J. H. N. Rosten,31 R. Rosten,14 M. Rotaru,27b J. Rothberg,145 B. Rottler,50 D. Rousseau,128 D. Roy,32c A. Rozanov,99 Y. Rozen,157 X. Ruan,32c F. Rubbo,150 F. Rühr,50 A. Ruiz-Martinez,171 Z. Rurikova,50 N. A. Rusakovich,77 H. L. Russell,101 J. P. Rutherfoord,7 E. M. Rüttinger,44,oo Y. F. Ryabov,134 M. Rybar,170 G. Rybkin,128 S. Ryu,6 A. Ryzhov,140 G. F. Rzehorz,51 P. Sabatini,51 G. Sabato,118 S. Sacerdoti,128 H. F-W. Sadrozinski,143 R. Sadykov,77 F. Safai Tehrani,70a P. Saha,119 M. Sahinsoy,59a A. Sahu,179 M. Saimpert,44 M. Saito,160 T. Saito,160 H. Sakamoto,160 A. Sakharov,121,gg D. Salamani,52 G. Salamanna,72a,72b J. E. Salazar Loyola,144b P. H. Sales De Bruin,169 D. Salihagic,113 A. Salnikov,150 072001-31 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) J. Salt,171 D. Salvatore,40b,40a F. Salvatore,153 A. Salvucci,61a,61b,61c A. Salzburger,35 J. Samarati,35 D. Sammel,50 D. Sampsonidis,159 D. Sampsonidou,159 J. Sánchez,171 A. Sanchez Pineda,64a,64c H. Sandaker,130 C. O. Sander,44 M. Sandhoff,179 C. Sandoval,22 D. P. C. Sankey,141 M. Sannino,53b,53a Y. Sano,115 A. Sansoni,49 C. Santoni,37 H. Santos,136a I. Santoyo Castillo,153 A. Santra,171 A. Sapronov,77 J. G. Saraiva,136a,136d O. Sasaki,79 K. Sato,166 F. Sauerburger,50 E. Sauvan,5 P. Savard,164,e N. Savic,113 R. Sawada,160 C. Sawyer,141 L. Sawyer,93,v C. Sbarra,23b A. Sbrizzi,23b,23a T. Scanlon,92 J. Schaarschmidt,145 P. Schacht,113 B. M. Schachtner,112 D. Schaefer,36 L. Schaefer,133 J. Schaeffer,97 S. Schaepe,35 U. Schäfer,97 A. C. Schaffer,128 D. Schaile,112 R. D. Schamberger,152 N. Scharmberg,98 V. A. Schegelsky,134 D. Scheirich,139 F. Schenck,19 M. Schernau,168 C. Schiavi,53b,53a S. Schier,143 L. K. Schildgen,24 Z. M. Schillaci,26 E. J. Schioppa,35 M. Schioppa,40b,40a K. E. Schleicher,50 S. Schlenker,35 K. R. Schmidt-Sommerfeld,113 K. Schmieden,35 C. Schmitt,97 S. Schmitt,44 S. Schmitz,97 J. C. Schmoeckel,44 U. Schnoor,50 L. Schoeffel,142 A. Schoening,59b E. Schopf,131 M. Schott,97 J. F. P. Schouwenberg,117 J. Schovancova,35 S. Schramm,52 A. Schulte,97 H-C. Schultz-Coulon,59a M. Schumacher,50 B. A. Schumm,143 Ph. Schune,142 A. Schwartzman,150 T. A. Schwarz,103 Ph. Schwemling,142 R. Schwienhorst,104 A. Sciandra,24 G. Sciolla,26 M. Scornajenghi,40b,40a F. Scuri,69a F. Scutti,102 L. M. Scyboz,113 J. Searcy,103 C. D. Sebastiani,70a,70b P. Seema,19 S. C. Seidel,116 A. Seiden,143 T. Seiss,36 J. M. Seixas,78b G. Sekhniaidze,67a K. Sekhon,103 S. J. Sekula,41 N. Semprini-Cesari,23b,23a S. Sen,47 S. Senkin,37 C. Serfon,130 L. Serin,128 L. Serkin,64a,64b M. Sessa,58a H. Severini,124 F. Sforza,167 A. Sfyrla,52 E. Shabalina,51 J. D. Shahinian,143 N. W. Shaikh,43a,43b L. Y. Shan,15a R. Shang,170 J. T. Shank,25 M. Shapiro,18 A. S. Sharma,1 A. Sharma,131 P. B. Shatalov,109 K. Shaw,153 S. M. Shaw,98 A. Shcherbakova,134 Y. Shen,124 N. Sherafati,33 A. D. Sherman,25 P. Sherwood,92 L. Shi,155,pp S. Shimizu,79 C. O. Shimmin,180 M. Shimojima,114 I. P. J. Shipsey,131 S. Shirabe,85 M. Shiyakova,77 J. Shlomi,177 A. Shmeleva,108 D. Shoaleh Saadi,107 M. J. Shochet,36 S. Shojaii,102 D. R. Shope,124 S. Shrestha,122 E. Shulga,110 P. Sicho,137 A. M. Sickles,170 P. E. Sidebo,151 E. Sideras Haddad,32c O. Sidiropoulou,35 A. Sidoti,23b,23a F. Siegert,46 Dj. Sijacki,16 J. Silva,136a M. Silva Jr.,178 M. V. Silva Oliveira,78a S. B. Silverstein,43a S. Simion,128 E. Simioni,97 M. Simon,97 R. Simoniello,97 P. Sinervo,164 N. B. Sinev,127 M. Sioli,23b,23a G. Siragusa,174 I. Siral,103 S. Yu. Sivoklokov,111 J. Sjölin,43a,43b P. Skubic,124 M. Slater,21 T. Slavicek,138 M. Slawinska,82 K. Sliwa,167 R. Slovak,139 V. Smakhtin,177 B. H. Smart,5 J. Smiesko,28a N. Smirnov,110 S. Yu. Smirnov,110 Y. Smirnov,110 L. N. Smirnova,111 O. Smirnova,94 J. W. Smith,51 M. N. K. Smith,38 M. Smizanska,87 K. Smolek,138 A. Smykiewicz,82 A. A. Snesarev,108 I. M. Snyder,127 S. Snyder,29 R. Sobie,173,m A. M. Soffa,168 A. Soffer,158 A. Søgaard,48 D. A. Soh,155 G. Sokhrannyi,89 C. A. Solans Sanchez,35 M. Solar,138 E. Yu. Soldatov,110 U. Soldevila,171 A. A. Solodkov,140 A. Soloshenko,77 O. V. Solovyanov,140 V. Solovyev,134 P. Sommer,146 H. Son,167 W. Song,141 W. Y. Song,165b A. Sopczak,138 F. Sopkova,28b C. L. Sotiropoulou,69a,69b S. Sottocornola,68a,68b R. Soualah,64a,64c,qq A. M. Soukharev,120b,120a D. South,44 B. C. Sowden,91 S. Spagnolo,65a,65b M. Spalla,113 M. Spangenberg,175 F. Spanò,91 D. Sperlich,19 F. Spettel,113 T. M. Spieker,59a R. Spighi,23b G. Spigo,35 L. A. Spiller,102 D. P. Spiteri,55 M. Spousta,139 A. Stabile,66a,66b R. Stamen,59a S. Stamm,19 E. Stanecka,82 R. W. Stanek,6 C. Stanescu,72a B. Stanislaus,131 M. M. Stanitzki,44 B. Stapf,118 S. Stapnes,130 E. A. Starchenko,140 G. H. Stark,36 J. Stark,56 S. H Stark,39 P. Staroba,137 P. Starovoitov,59a S. Stärz,35 R. Staszewski,82 M. Stegler,44 P. Steinberg,29 B. Stelzer,149 H. J. Stelzer,35 O. Stelzer-Chilton,165a H. Stenzel,54 T. J. Stevenson,90 G. A. Stewart,55 M. C. Stockton,127 G. Stoicea,27b P. Stolte,51 S. Stonjek,113 A. Straessner,46 J. Strandberg,151 S. Strandberg,43a,43b M. Strauss,124 P. Strizenec,28b R. Ströhmer,174 D. M. Strom,127 R. Stroynowski,41 A. Strubig,48 S. A. Stucci,29 B. Stugu,17 J. Stupak,124 N. A. Styles,44 D. Su,150 J. Su,135 S. Suchek,59a Y. Sugaya,129 M. Suk,138 V. V. Sulin,108 M. J. Sullivan,88 D. M. S. Sultan,52 S. Sultansoy,4c T. Sumida,83 S. Sun,103 X. Sun,3 K. Suruliz,153 C. J. E. Suster,154 M. R. Sutton,153 S. Suzuki,79 M. Svatos,137 M. Swiatlowski,36 S. P. Swift,2 A. Sydorenko,97 I. Sykora,28a T. Sykora,139 D. Ta,97 K. Tackmann,44,rr J. Taenzer,158 A. Taffard,168 R. Tafirout,165a E. Tahirovic,90 N. Taiblum,158 H. Takai,29 R. Takashima,84 E. H. Takasugi,113 K. Takeda,80 T. Takeshita,147 Y. Takubo,79 M. Talby,99 A. A. Talyshev,120b,120a J. Tanaka,160 M. Tanaka,162 R. Tanaka,128 B. B. Tannenwald,122 S. Tapia Araya,144b S. Tapprogge,97 A. Tarek Abouelfadl Mohamed,132 S. Tarem,157 G. Tarna,27b,q G. F. Tartarelli,66a P. Tas,139 M. Tasevsky,137 T. Tashiro,83 E. Tassi,40b,40a A. Tavares Delgado,136a,136b Y. Tayalati,34e A. C. Taylor,116 A. J. Taylor,48 G. N. Taylor,102 P. T. E. Taylor,102 W. Taylor,165b A. S. Tee,87 P. Teixeira-Dias,91 H. Ten Kate,35 P. K. Teng,155 J. J. Teoh,118 S. Terada,79 K. Terashi,160 J. Terron,96 S. Terzo,14 M. Testa,49 R. J. Teuscher,164,m S. J. Thais,180 T. Theveneaux-Pelzer,44 F. Thiele,39 D. W. Thomas,91 J. P. Thomas,21 A. S. Thompson,55 P. D. Thompson,21 L. A. Thomsen,180 E. Thomson,133 Y. Tian,38 R. E. Ticse Torres,51 V. O. Tikhomirov,108,ss Yu. A. Tikhonov,120b,120a S. Timoshenko,110 P. Tipton,180 S. Tisserant,99 K. Todome,162 S. Todorova-Nova,5 S. Todt,46 J. Tojo,85 S. Tokár,28a 072001-32 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) K. Tokushuku,79 E. Tolley,122 K. G. Tomiwa,32c M. Tomoto,115 L. Tompkins,150,ff K. Toms,116 B. Tong,57 P. Tornambe,50 E. Torrence,127 H. Torres,46 E. Torró Pastor,145 C. Tosciri,131 J. Toth,99,tt F. Touchard,99 D. R. Tovey,146 C. J. Treado,121 T. Trefzger,174 F. Tresoldi,153 A. Tricoli,29 I. M. Trigger,165a S. Trincaz-Duvoid,132 M. F. Tripiana,14 W. Trischuk,164 B. Trocmé,56 A. Trofymov,128 C. Troncon,66a M. Trovatelli,173 F. Trovato,153 L. Truong,32b M. Trzebinski,82 A. Trzupek,82 F. Tsai,44 J. C-L. Tseng,131 P. V. Tsiareshka,105 A. Tsirigotis,159 N. Tsirintanis,9 V. Tsiskaridze,152 E. G. Tskhadadze,156a I. I. Tsukerman,109 V. Tsulaia,18 S. Tsuno,79 D. Tsybychev,152,163 Y. Tu,61b A. Tudorache,27b V. Tudorache,27b T. T. Tulbure,27a A. N. Tuna,57 S. Turchikhin,77 D. Turgeman,177 I. Turk Cakir,4b,uu R. Turra,66a P. M. Tuts,38 E. Tzovara,97 G. Ucchielli,23b,23a I. Ueda,79 M. Ughetto,43a,43b F. Ukegawa,166 G. Unal,35 A. Undrus,29 G. Unel,168 F. C. Ungaro,102 Y. Unno,79 K. Uno,160 J. Urban,28b P. Urquijo,102 P. Urrejola,97 G. Usai,8 J. Usui,79 L. Vacavant,99 V. Vacek,138 B. Vachon,101 K. O. H. Vadla,130 A. Vaidya,92 C. Valderanis,112 E. Valdes Santurio,43a,43b M. Valente,52 S. Valentinetti,23b,23a A. Valero,171 L. Valéry,44 R. A. Vallance,21 A. Vallier,5 J. A. Valls Ferrer,171 T. R. Van Daalen,14 H. Van der Graaf,118 P. Van Gemmeren,6 J. Van Nieuwkoop,149 I. Van Vulpen,118 M. Vanadia,71a,71b W. Vandelli,35 A. Vaniachine,163 P. Vankov,118 R. Vari,70a E. W. Varnes,7 C. Varni,53b,53a T. Varol,41 D. Varouchas,128 K. E. Varvell,154 G. A. Vasquez,144b J. G. Vasquez,180 F. Vazeille,37 D. Vazquez Furelos,14 T. Vazquez Schroeder,101 J. Veatch,51 V. Vecchio,72a,72b L. M. Veloce,164 F. Veloso,136a,136c S. Veneziano,70a A. Ventura,65a,65b M. Venturi,173 N. Venturi,35 V. Vercesi,68a M. Verducci,72a,72b C. M. Vergel Infante,76 C. Vergis,24 W. Verkerke,118 A. T. Vermeulen,118 J. C. Vermeulen,118 M. C. Vetterli,149,e N. Viaux Maira,144b M. Vicente Barreto Pinto,52 I. Vichou,170,a T. Vickey,146 O. E. Vickey Boeriu,146 G. H. A. Viehhauser,131 S. Viel,18 L. Vigani,131 M. Villa,23b,23a M. Villaplana Perez,66a,66b E. Vilucchi,49 M. G. Vincter,33 V. B. Vinogradov,77 A. Vishwakarma,44 C. Vittori,23b,23a I. Vivarelli,153 S. Vlachos,10 M. Vogel,179 P. Vokac,138 G. Volpi,14 S. E. von Buddenbrock,32c E. Von Toerne,24 V. Vorobel,139 K. Vorobev,110 M. Vos,171 J. H. Vossebeld,88 N. Vranjes,16 M. Vranjes Milosavljevic,16 V. Vrba,138 M. Vreeswijk,118 T. Šfiligoj,89 R. Vuillermet,35 I. Vukotic,36 T. Ženiš,28a L. Živković,16 P. Wagner,24 W. Wagner,179 J. Wagner-Kuhr,112 H. Wahlberg,86 S. Wahrmund,46 K. Wakamiya,80 V. M. Walbrecht,113 J. Walder,87 R. Walker,112 S. D. Walker,91 W. Walkowiak,148 V. Wallangen,43a,43b A. M. Wang,57 C. Wang,58b,q F. Wang,178 H. Wang,18 H. Wang,3 J. Wang,154 J. Wang,59b P. Wang,41 Q. Wang,124 R.-J. Wang,132 R. Wang,58a R. Wang,6 S. M. Wang,155 W. T. Wang,58a W. Wang,15c,vv W. X. Wang,58a,vv Y. Wang,58a,ii Z. Wang,58c C. Wanotayaroj,44 A. Warburton,101 C. P. Ward,31 D. R. Wardrope,92 A. Washbrook,48 P. M. Watkins,21 A. T. Watson,21 M. F. Watson,21 G. Watts,145 S. Watts,98 B. M. Waugh,92 A. F. Webb,11 S. Webb,97 C. Weber,180 M. S. Weber,20 S. A. Weber,33 S. M. Weber,59a A. R. Weidberg,131 B. Weinert,63 J. Weingarten,45 M. Weirich,97 C. Weiser,50 P. S. Wells,35 T. Wenaus,29 T. Wengler,35 S. Wenig,35 N. Wermes,24 M. D. Werner,76 P. Werner,35 M. Wessels,59a T. D. Weston,20 K. Whalen,127 N. L. Whallon,145 A. M. Wharton,87 A. S. White,103 A. White,8 M. J. White,1 R. White,144b D. Whiteson,168 B. W. Whitmore,87 F. J. Wickens,141 W. Wiedenmann,178 M. Wielers,141 C. Wiglesworth,39 L. A. M. Wiik-Fuchs,50 F. Wilk,98 H. G. Wilkens,35 L. J. Wilkins,91 H. H. Williams,133 S. Williams,31 C. Willis,104 S. Willocq,100 J. A. Wilson,21 I. Wingerter-Seez,5 E. Winkels,153 F. Winklmeier,127 O. J. Winston,153 B. T. Winter,24 M. Wittgen,150 M. Wobisch,93 A. Wolf,97 T. M. H. Wolf,118 R. Wolff,99 M. W. Wolter,82 H. Wolters,136a,136c V. W. S. Wong,172 N. L. Woods,143 S. D. Worm,21 B. K. Wosiek,82 K. W. Woźniak,82 K. Wraight,55 M. Wu,36 S. L. Wu,178 X. Wu,52 Y. Wu,58a T. R. Wyatt,98 B. M. Wynne,48 S. Xella,39 Z. Xi,103 L. Xia,175 D. Xu,15a H. Xu,58a,q L. Xu,29 T. Xu,142 W. Xu,103 B. Yabsley,154 S. Yacoob,32a K. Yajima,129 D. P. Yallup,92 D. Yamaguchi,162 Y. Yamaguchi,162 A. Yamamoto,79 T. Yamanaka,160 F. Yamane,80 M. Yamatani,160 T. Yamazaki,160 Y. Yamazaki,80 Z. Yan,25 H. J. Yang,58c,58d H. T. Yang,18 S. Yang,75 Y. Yang,160 Z. Yang,17 W-M. Yao,18 Y. C. Yap,44 Y. Yasu,79 E. Yatsenko,58c,58d J. Ye,41 S. Ye,29 I. Yeletskikh,77 E. Yigitbasi,25 E. Yildirim,97 K. Yorita,176 K. Yoshihara,133 C. J. S. Young,35 C. Young,150 J. Yu,8 J. Yu,76 X. Yue,59a S. P. Y. Yuen,24 B. Zabinski,82 G. Zacharis,10 E. Zaffaroni,52 R. Zaidan,14 A. M. Zaitsev,140,mm T. Zakareishvili,156b N. Zakharchuk,33 J. Zalieckas,17 S. Zambito,57 D. Zanzi,35 D. R. Zaripovas,55 S. V. Zeißner,45 C. Zeitnitz,179 G. Zemaityte,131 J. C. Zeng,170 Q. Zeng,150 O. Zenin,140 D. Zerwas,128 M. Zgubič,131 D. F. Zhang,58b D. Zhang,103 F. Zhang,178 G. Zhang,58a H. Zhang,15c J. Zhang,6 L. Zhang,15c L. Zhang,58a M. Zhang,170 P. Zhang,15c R. Zhang,58a R. Zhang,24 X. Zhang,58b Y. Zhang,15d Z. Zhang,128 P. Zhao,47 X. Zhao,41 Y. Zhao,58b,128,z Z. Zhao,58a A. Zhemchugov,77 Z. Zheng,103 D. Zhong,170 B. Zhou,103 C. Zhou,178 L. Zhou,41 M. S. Zhou,15d M. Zhou,152 N. Zhou,58c Y. Zhou,7 C. G. Zhu,58b H. L. Zhu,58a H. Zhu,15a J. Zhu,103 Y. Zhu,58a X. Zhuang,15a K. Zhukov,108 V. Zhulanov,120b,120a A. Zibell,174 D. Zieminska,63 N. I. Zimine,77 S. Zimmermann,50 Z. Zinonos,113 M. Zinser,97 M. Ziolkowski,148 G. Zobernig,178 A. Zoccoli,23b,23a K. Zoch,51 T. G. Zorbas,146 R. Zou,36 M. Zur Nedden,19 and L. Zwalinski35 072001-33 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) (ATLAS Collaboration) 1 Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 2 Physics Department, SUNY Albany, Albany, New York, USA 3 Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 4a Department of Physics, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey 4b Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey 4c Division of Physics, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey 5 LAPP, Université Grenoble Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy, France 6 High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, USA 7 Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA 8 Department of Physics, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA 9 Physics Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece 10 Physics Department, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Greece 11 Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA 12a Bahcesehir University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey 12b Istanbul Bilgi University, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey 12c Department of Physics, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey 12d Department of Physics Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey 13 Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan 14 Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain 15a Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 15b Physics Department, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China 15c Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China 15d University of Chinese Academy of Science (UCAS), Beijing, China 16 Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia 17 Department for Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 18 Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 19 Institut für Physik, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany 20 Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics and Laboratory for High Energy Physics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 21 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom 22 Centro de Investigaciónes, Universidad Antonio Nariño, Bogota, Colombia 23a Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 23b INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 24 Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany 25 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 26 Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA 27a Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania 27b Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania 27c Department of Physics, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania 27d National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies, Physics Department, Cluj-Napoca, Romania 27e University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania 27f West University in Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania 28a Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic 28b Department of Subnuclear Physics, Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice, Slovak Republic 29 Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, USA 30 Departamento de Física, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina 31 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom 32a Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa 32b Department of Mechanical Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa 32c School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 33 Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 34a Faculté des Sciences Ain Chock, Réseau Universitaire de Physique des Hautes Energies—Université Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco 072001-34 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) 34b Centre National de l’Energie des Sciences Techniques Nucleaires (CNESTEN), Rabat, Morocco 34c Faculté des Sciences Semlalia, Université Cadi Ayyad, LPHEA-Marrakech, Morocco 34d Faculté des Sciences, Université Mohamed Premier and LPTPM, Oujda, Morocco 34e Faculté des sciences, Université Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco 35 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland 36 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA 37 LPC, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France 38 Nevis Laboratory, Columbia University, Irvington, New York, USA 39 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 40a Dipartimento di Fisica, Università della Calabria, Rende, Italy 40b INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Italy 41 Physics Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA 42 Physics Department, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA 43a Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 43b Oskar Klein Centre, Stockholm, Sweden 44 Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg and Zeuthen, Germany 45 Lehrstuhl für Experimentelle Physik IV, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany 46 Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany 47 Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA 48 SUPA—School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 49 INFN e Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 50 Physikalisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 51 II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany 52 Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland 53a Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Genova, Genova, Italy 53b INFN Sezione di Genova, Genova, Italy 54 II. Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Giessen, Germany 55 SUPA—School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom 56 LPSC, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3, Grenoble INP, Grenoble, France 57 Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 58a Department of Modern Physics and State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China 58b Institute of Frontier and Interdisciplinary Science and Key Laboratory of Particle Physics and Particle Irradiation (MOE), Shandong University, Qingdao, China 58c School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, KLPPAC-MoE, SKLPPC, Shanghai, China 58d Tsung-Dao Lee Institute, Shanghai, China 59a Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 59b Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 60 Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima, Japan 61a Department of Physics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China 61b Department of Physics, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China 61c Department of Physics and Institute for Advanced Study, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China 62 Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan 63 Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA 64a INFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine, Sezione di Trieste, Udine, Italy 64b ICTP, Trieste, Italy 64c Dipartimento di Chimica, Fisica e Ambiente, Università di Udine, Udine, Italy 65a INFN Sezione di Lecce, Lecce, Italy 65b Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy 66a INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy 66b Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano, Milano, Italy 67a INFN Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy 67b Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy 68a INFN Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy 68b Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy 69a INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy 69b Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy 70a INFN Sezione di Roma, Roma, Italy 072001-35 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) 70b Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy 71a INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy 71b Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy 72a INFN Sezione di Roma Tre, Roma, Italy 72b Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Roma Tre, Roma, Italy 73a INFN-TIFPA, Trento, Italy 73b Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, Italy 74 Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, Austria 75 University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA 76 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA 77 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia 78a Departamento de Engenharia Elétrica, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Brazil 78b Universidade Federal do Rio De Janeiro COPPE/EE/IF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 78c Universidade Federal de São João del Rei (UFSJ), São João del Rei, Brazil 78d Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 79 KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan 80 Graduate School of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan 81a AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, Krakow, Poland 81b Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland 82 Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland 83 Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan 84 Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto, Japan 85 Research Center for Advanced Particle Physics and Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan 86 Instituto de Física La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET, La Plata, Argentina 87 Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom 88 Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom 89 Department of Experimental Particle Physics, Jožef Stefan Institute and Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 90 School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom 91 Department of Physics, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, United Kingdom 92 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, United Kingdom 93 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, USA 94 Fysiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund, Sweden 95 Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France 96 Departamento de Física Teorica C-15 and CIAFF, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain 97 Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany 98 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom 99 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France 100 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA 101 Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 102 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 103 Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA 104 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA 105 B.I. Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Belarus 106 Research Institute for Nuclear Problems of Byelorussian State University, Minsk, Belarus 107 Group of Particle Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada 108 P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 109 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia 110 National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia 111 D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 112 Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany 113 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), München, Germany 114 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan 115 Graduate School of Science and Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan 116 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA 072001-36 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) 117 Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nikhef, Nijmegen, Netherlands 118 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands 119 Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA 120a Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia 120b Novosibirsk State University Novosibirsk, Russia 121 Department of Physics, New York University, New York, New York, USA 122 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA 123 Faculty of Science, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan 124 Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA 125 Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA 126 Palacký University, RCPTM, Joint Laboratory of Optics, Olomouc, Czech Republic 127 Center for High Energy Physics, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA 128 LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France 129 Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan 130 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 131 Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom 132 LPNHE, Sorbonne Université, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cité, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France 133 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA 134 Konstantinov Nuclear Physics Institute of National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute”, PNPI, St. Petersburg, Russia 135 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA 136a Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas—LIP, Lisboa, Portugal 136b Departamento de Física, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal 136c Departamento de Física, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 136d Centro de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal 136e Departamento de Física, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal 136f Departamento de Física Teorica y del Cosmos, Universidad de Granada, Granada (Spain), Spain 136g Dep Física and CEFITEC of Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal 137 Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic 138 Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 139 Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague, Czech Republic 140 State Research Center Institute for High Energy Physics, NRC KI, Protvino, Russia 141 Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom 142 IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 143 Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA 144a Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile 144b Departamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile 145 Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA 146 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom 147 Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan 148 Department Physik, Universität Siegen, Siegen, Germany 149 Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada 150 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, California, USA 151 Physics Department, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden 152 Departments of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA 153 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom 154 School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 155 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 156a E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia 156b High Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia 157 Department of Physics, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 158 Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 159 Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece 160 International Center for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 161 Graduate School of Science and Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan 072001-37 M. AABOUD et al. PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) 162 Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan 163 Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia 164 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 165a TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 165b Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 166 Division of Physics and Tomonaga Center for the History of the Universe, Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 167 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA 168 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, USA 169 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden 170 Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, USA 171 Instituto de Física Corpuscular (IFIC), Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia—CSIC, Valencia, Spain 172 Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 173 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada 174 Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany 175 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom 176 Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan 177 Department of Particle Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 178 Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA 179 Fakultät für Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, Fachgruppe Physik, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany 180 Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 181 Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia a Deceased. b Also at Department of Physics, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom. c Also at Istanbul University, Dept. of Physics, Istanbul, Turkey. d Also at Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan. e Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. f Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA. g Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Fresno, California, USA. h Also at Department of Physics, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. i Also at Departament de Fisica de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. j Also at Tomsk State University, Tomsk, and Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University, Dolgoprudny, Russia. k Also at The Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter (CICQM), Beijing, China. l Also at Universita di Napoli Parthenope, Napoli, Italy. m Also at Institute of Particle Physics (IPP), Canada. n Also at II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. o Also at Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. p Also at Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania. q Also at CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France. r Also at Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia. s Also at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, New York, USA. t Also at Department of Financial and Management Engineering, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece. u Also at Centre for High Performance Computing, CSIR Campus, Rosebank, Cape Town, South Africa. v Also at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, USA. w Also at California State University, East Bay, California, USA. x Also at Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats, ICREA, Barcelona, Spain. y Also at Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. z Also at LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France. aa Also at Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan. bb Also at Physikalisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. cc Also at Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nikhef, Nijmegen, Netherlands. dd Also at Institute of Theoretical Physics, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia. ee Also at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. ff Also at Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. gg Also at Manhattan College, New York, New York, USA. hh Also at Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece. ii Also at LPNHE, Sorbonne Université, Paris Diderot Sorbonne Paris Cité, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France. 072001-38 CROSS-SECTION MEASUREMENTS OF THE HIGGS BOSON … PHYS. REV. D 99, 072001 (2019) jj Also at The City College of New York, New York, New York, USA. kk Also at Departamento de Física Teorica y del Cosmos, Universidad de Granada, Granada (Spain), Spain. ll Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Sacramento, California, USA. mm Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University, Dolgoprudny, Russia. nn Also at Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland. oo Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. pp Also at School of Physics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. qq Also at Department of Applied Physics and Astronomy, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. rr Also at Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. ss Also at National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia. tt Also at Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary. uu Also at Giresun University, Faculty of Engineering, Giresun, Turkey. vv Also at Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. 072001-39