EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

arXiv:1507.04548v2 [hep-ex] 29 Feb 2016

Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 6
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3769-y

CERN-PH-EP-2015-125
1st March 2016

Measurements of the Higgs boson production√and decay rates andcoupling strengths using pp collision data at s = 7 and 8 TeV in
the ATLAS experiment
The ATLAS Collaboration

Abstract
Combined analyses of the Higgs boson production and decay rates as well as its couplingstrengths to vector bosons and fermions are presented. The combinations include the results of the analyses of the H → γγ, ZZ ∗ , WW ∗ , Zγ, bb̄, ττ and µµ decay modes, and theconstraints on the associated production with a pair of top quarks and on the off-shell coupling strengths of the Higgs boson. The results are based on the√ LHC proton-proton collision−1
datasets,with integrated luminosities of up to 4.7 fb at s = 7 TeV and 20.3 fb−1 at√
s = 8 TeV, recorded by the ATLAS detector in 2011 and 2012. Combining all production
modes and decay channels, the measured signal yield, normalised to the Standard Model expectation, is 1.18+0.15−0.14 . The observed Higgs boson production and decay rates are interpreted
in a leading-order coupling framework, exploring a wide range of benchmark coupling models both with and without assumptions on the Higgs boson width and on the Standard Modelparticle content in loop processes. The data are found to be compatible with the Standard
Model expectations for a Higgs boson at a mass of 125.36 GeV for all models considered.

c 2016 CERN for the benefit of the ATLAS Collaboration.
Reproduction of this article or parts of it is allowed as specified in the CC-BY-3.0 license.

1. Introduction
In 2012, the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) reported the observation of a new particle at a mass of approximately 125 GeV [1, 2]. The discovery made in the search for theStandard Model (SM) Higgs boson (H), is a milestone in the quest to understand electroweak symmetry
breaking (EWSB). Within the SM, EWSB is achieved through the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism [3–8] which predicts the existence of a neutral scalar particle, commonly known as the Higgs boson. While
the SM does not predict the value of its mass (mH ), the production cross sections and decay branchingratios (BR) of the Higgs boson can be precisely calculated once the mass is known. Therefore, precision measurements of the properties of the new particle are critical in ascertaining whether the newly
discovered particle is fully responsible for EWSB and whether there are potential deviations from SM
predictions.
At the LHC, SM production of the Higgs boson is dominated by the gluon fusion process gg → H (ggF),
followed by the vector-boson fusion process qq0 → qq0 H (VBF). Associated production with a W boson
qq̄0 → WH (WH), a Z boson qq̄/gg → ZH (ZH) or with a pair of top quarks qq̄/gg → tt¯H (ttH)
have sizeable contributions as well. The WH and ZH production processes are collectively referred toas the V H process. Contributions are also expected from bb̄ → H (bbH) and production in association
with a single top quark (tH). The latter proceeds through either the qb → tHq0 or gb → WtH process.
With the present dataset, the LHC is expected to be most sensitive to the Higgs boson decays of H →γγ, ZZ ∗ , WW ∗ , ττ and bb̄. Together they account for approximately 88% of all decays of a SM Higgs
boson at mH ∼ 125 GeV.
The discovery of the Higgs boson was made through analyses of the bosonic decay modes in H → γγ,
H → ZZ ∗ → 4` and H → WW ∗ → `ν`ν (` = e, µ) events. Since the discovery, these analyses have been
improved and updated with more data [9–11]. The H → WW ∗ → `ν`ν analysis has been supplemented
with a dedicated V H analysis targeting H → WW ∗ [12]. The ATLAS Collaboration has measured the
Higgs boson mass from the H → γγ and H → ZZ ∗ → 4` decays to be mH = 125.36 ± 0.41 GeV [13],reported results in the H → ττ [14] and H → bb̄ [15] fermionic decay modes, and published upper limits
on the rare decays H → Zγ [16] and H → µµ [17]. Furthermore, constraints have been set on the ttH
production rate [18–20] and on the off-shell coupling strengths of the Higgs boson [21]. These results are
based on the full proton-proton collision data with integrated luminosities of up to 4.7 fb−1 at a centre-of√√
mass energy s = 7 TeV recorded in 2011 and 20.3 fb−1 at s = 8 TeV recorded in 2012 by the ATLAS
detector at the LHC. A detailed description of the ATLAS detector can be found in Ref. [22].
This paper presents the combined results of the analyses mentioned above. These analyses are designed
for maximum sensitivities to SM Higgs boson production from different processes, exploiting in particular
the differences in kinematics through categorisation of the selected events. Thus the yields of different
Higgs boson production processes and decays can be extracted. The Higgs boson coupling strengths to
SM vector bosons and fermions in different benchmark models are probed for the measured Higgs boson
mass of mH = 125.36 GeV. All results are obtained assuming the Higgs boson has a small total decay
width such that its production and decay factorise. The ATLAS Collaboration has previously publishedcombined studies of Higgs boson production and decay rates [23] and of spin-parity properties [24, 25]
using diboson final states. The results are found to be consistent with expectations from the SM Higgs
boson. Compared with the previous publication, the current results are based on the improved analysis
sensitivities and the addition of information from other decay modes. A similar combination has been
published by the CMS Collaboration [26].

2The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 briefly summarises the individual analyses that are includedin the combinations and Section 3 outlines the statistical method and the treatment of systematic uncertainties used in the combinations. In Section 4, the measured Higgs boson yields are compared with the
SM predictions for different production processes and decay modes. In Section 5, the coupling strengthsof the Higgs boson are tested through fits to the observed data. These studies probe possible deviations
from the SM predictions under various assumptions, motivated in many cases by beyond-the-SM (BSM)
physics scenarios. An upper limit on the branching ratio to invisible or undetected decay modes of the
Higgs boson is also set. Finally, a brief summary is presented in Section 6.

2. Input analyses to the combinations
The inputs to the combinations are the results from the analyses of H → γγ, ZZ ∗ , WW ∗ , ττ, bb̄, µµ andZγ decay modes, and of the constraints on ttH and off-shell Higgs boson production. These analyses andchanges made for the combinations are briefly discussed in this section. The ATLAS Collaboration has
also performed a search for the rare H → J/ψγ decay [27] which has the potential to constrain the Higgs
boson coupling strength to the charm quark. However, the current result does not add sensitivity and istherefore omitted from the combinations. Furthermore, the inclusion of the results from direct searches
for Higgs boson decays to invisible particles, such as those reported in Ref. [28, 29], is beyond the scopeof the combinations presented in this paper.
The theoretical calculations of the Higgs boson production cross sections and decay branching ratios havebeen compiled in Refs. [30–32] and are summarised in Table 1. For the ggF process, the cross section iscomputed at up to NNLO in QCD corrections [33–38] and NLO in electroweak (EW) corrections [39–41].
The effects of QCD soft-gluon resummations at up to NNLL [42] are also applied. These calculations aredescribed in Refs. [43–47]. For the VBF process, full QCD and EW corrections up to NLO [48–50] andapproximate NNLO [51, 52] QCD corrections are used to calculate the cross section. The cross sectionsof the WH and ZH (qq̄ → ZH) are calculated including QCD corrections up to NNLO [53, 54] and EW
corrections up to NLO [55, 56] whereas the cross section of the gg → ZH process is calculated up to NLO
in QCD corrections [57, 58]. The cross section for ttH is computed up to NLO in QCD [59–62]. For thebbH process, the cross section is calculated in QCD corrections up to NLO [63–65] in the four-flavour
scheme and up to NNLO [66] in the five-flavour scheme with the Santander matching scheme [67].
The cross sections of the tH processes used are calculated at up to NLO in QCD corrections [68, 69].
The PDF sets used in these calculations are CT10 [70, 71], MSTW2008 [72], NNPDF2.1 [73, 74] and
NNPDF2.3 [75] following the prescription of Ref. [76]. The decay branching ratios of the Higgs boson
are calculated using the Hdecay [77, 78] and Prophecy4f [79, 80] programs, compiled in Ref. [81].
All analyses use Monte Carlo (MC) samples to model the acceptances of the Higgs boson events. Table 2
summarises the event generators and parton distribution functions (PDF) used for the analyses of the√√s = 8 TeV data. The modelling at s = 7 TeV is similar, with one notable difference of Pythia6 [83]replacing Pythia8 [84]. The ggF and VBF production of the Higgs boson are simulated with the nextto-leading order (NLO) matrix-element Powheg program [85–89] interfaced to either Pythia6 or Pythia8
for the simulation of the underlying event, parton showering and hadronisation (referred to as the showering program). The Higgs boson transverse momentum distribution from ggF production is reweighted
to match the calculation of HRes2.1 [90, 91], which includes QCD corrections up to the next-to-nextto-leading order (NNLO) and next-to-next-to-leading logarithm (NNLL) in perturbative expansions. Furthermore, ggF events with two or more jets are reweighted to match the transverse momentum distribution

3

Table 1: SM predictions of the Higgs boson production cross sections and decay branching ratios and their uncertainties for mH = 125.36 GeV, obtained by linear interpolations from those at 125.3 and 125.4 GeV from Ref. [32]except for the tH production cross section which is obtained from Refs. [20, 82]. The uncertainties of the crosssections are the sum in quadrature of the uncertainties resulting from variations of QCD scales, parton distributionfunctions and αs . The uncertainty on the tH cross section is calculated following the procedure in Refs. [20, 32].

Production
process
ggF
VBF
WH
ZH
bbH
ttH
tH
Total

Cross section [pb]√s = 7 TeV
s = 8 TeV
15.0 ± 1.6
19.2 ± 2.0
1.22 ± 0.03
1.57 ± 0.04
0.573 ± 0.016 0.698 ± 0.018
0.332 ± 0.013 0.412 ± 0.013
0.155 ± 0.021 0.202 ± 0.028
0.086 ± 0.009 0.128 ± 0.014
0.012 ± 0.001 0.018 ± 0.001
17.4 ± 1.6
22.3 ± 2.0

Decay channel
H → bb̄
H → WW ∗H → ggH → ττ
H → cc̄
H → ZZ ∗H → γγH → Zγ
H → µµ√Branching ratio [%]57.1 ± 1.9
22.0 ± 0.9
8.53 ± 0.85
6.26 ± 0.35
2.88 ± 0.35
2.73 ± 0.11
0.228 ± 0.011
0.157 ± 0.014
0.022 ± 0.001

from MiNLO HJJ predictions [92]. The WH and ZH (qq̄ → ZH) production processes are simulated withthe leading-order (LO) Pythia8 program. The gg → ZH process contributes approximately 8% to thetotal ZH production cross section in the SM. For most of the analyses, the process is modelled usingqq̄ → ZH of Pythia8. Only the V H analysis in the H → bb̄ decay mode specifically models gg → ZH
production using Powheg [85–87] interfaced to Pythia8. The ttH process is modelled using the NLO
calculation in the HELAC-Oneloop package [93] interfaced to Powheg and Pythia8 for the subsequent
simulation. The tH production process is simulated using MadGraph [94] interfaced to Pythia8 for
qb → tHq0 and using MadGraph5_aMC@NLO [82] interfaced to Herwig++ [95] for gb → WtH. The
bbH production process contributes approximately 1% [96] to the total Higgs boson cross section in the
SM. It is simulated with the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO program for some analyses. The event kinematics
of ggF and bbH production are found to be similar for analysis categories that are most important forbbH. Thus the acceptance times efficiency for bbH is assumed to be the same as for ggF for all analyses.
The PDF sets used in the event generations are CT10 [70] and CTEQ6L1 [97]. All Higgs boson decays
are simulated by the showering programs.
Throughout this paper, the signal-strength parameter µ is defined as the ratio of the measured Higgs bosonyield to its SM expectation:µ=

σ × BR.
(σ × BR)SM(1)

Here σ is the production cross section of the Higgs boson. For a specific production process i and decayfchannel f , i.e., i → H → f , the signal-strength parameter is labelled as µi and can be factorised in termsof the signal strengths of production (µi ) and decay (µ f ):fµi =σi × BR f
BR fσi≡ µi × µ f , with µi =and µ f =.
(σi × BR f )SM(σi )SM(BR f )SM(2)

Thus for each analysis category (c) as discussed later in this section, the number of signal events (ncs ) can4

Table 2: Summary√ of event generators, showering programs and PDF sets used to model the Higgs boson production
and decays at s = 8 TeV.

Production
processggF
VBF
WH
ZH : qq̄ → ZH
ZH : gg → ZH
ttH
bbH
tH : qb → tHq0
tH : gb → WtH

Event
generator
PowhegPowhegPythia8
Pythia8
PowhegPowhegMadGraph5_aMC@NLO

MadGraph
MadGraph5_aMC@NLO

Showering
programPythia6/Pythia8
Pythia6/Pythia8
Pythia8
Pythia8
Pythia8
Pythia8
Herwig++Pythia8
Herwig++

PDF
set
CT10
CT10
CTEQ6L1
CTEQ6L1
CT10
CT10
CT10
CT10
CT10

be written as:
ncs =

XX
i

µi (σi )SM × µ f (BR f )SM × Acif × εcif × Lc

(3)fwhere the indices i and f indicate the production processes and decays contributing to the category, Acifrepresents the detector acceptance derived from simulation of the SM process, εcif is the reconstruction
efficiency within the acceptance and Lc the integrated luminosity for the given category c of the given
channel.
However, the experimental data do not allow to separately determine µi and µ f for any given processsince only their product is measured. All combined fits of signal strengths presented in this paper makeassumptions about the relationship between µi of different production processes or similarly between µ fof different decay modes. Thus the meaning of the signal strength depends on the assumptions made. Nevertheless, the production and decays can be factorised using the ratios of cross sections and of branchingratios as discussed in Section 4.4.
Leptons (`) refer to electrons or muons unless specified otherwise; the symbols τlep and τhad refer toτ leptons identified through their decays to leptons or hadrons; and variables pT , ET and ETmiss referto transverse momentum, transverse energy and missing transverse momentum, respectively. Notations
indicating particle charges or antiparticles are generally omitted.
The ATLAS experiment uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction
point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the z-axis along the beam pipe. The x-axis points from the
IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the y-axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates (r, φ) are used in
the transverse plane, φ being the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe. The pseudorapidity is defined interms of the polar angle θ as η = − ln tan(θ/2).
Table 3 gives an overview of the analyses that are inputs to the combinations and their main results, as
published. An essential feature of these analyses is the extensive application of exclusive categorisation,i.e., classifying candidate events based on the expected kinematics of the different Higgs boson production

5

processes. The categorisation not only improves the analysis sensitivity, but also allows for the discrimination among different production processes. Figure 1 summarises the signal-strength measurements ofdifferent production processes that are used as inputs to the combinations.

ATLAS

Input measurements± 1σ on µ

Individual analysis
mH (GeV)Overall: µ = 1.17

+0.27

H → γγ

-0.27
+0.38

ggF: µ = 1.32

-0.38
+0.7

125.4

WH: µ = 1.0

125.4

ZH: µ = 0.1

125.4

Overall: µ = 1.44

125.36

-1.6
+3.7
-0.1

+0.40
-0.33
+0.5

ggF+ttH: µ = 1.7

125.36

VBF+VH: µ = 0.3

125.36Overall: µ = 1.16

125.36

-0.4
+1.6
-0.9

+0.24

H → WW*-0.21

ggF: µ = 0.98

125.36

VBF: µ = 1.28

125.36

+0.29
-0.26

+0.55
-0.47
+1.6

VH: µ = 3.0

125.36Overall: µ = 1.43

125.36

ggF: µ = 2.0

125.36

VBF+VH: µ = 1.24

125.36-1.3

H → ττ

+0.43
-0.37
+1.5
-1.2
+0.59
-0.54

Overall: µ = 0.52

+0.40

VH → Vbb

-0.40
+0.65

125

ZH: µ = 0.05

125

-0.49

H → ZγttH

125.36

WH: µ = 1.11

-0.61
+0.52

H → µµ125.4

VBF: µ = 0.8

-0.7
+1.6

H → ZZ*

125.4

Overall: µ = -0.7

+3.7
-3.7

125.5

Overall: µ = 2.7+4.5 125.5-4.3
bb: µ = 1.5+1.1 125-1.1

Multilepton: µ = 2.1+1.4 125-1.2γ γ : µ = 1.3+2.62-1.75

s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb

-1

125.4

−2

0

2

4

Signal strength (µ)

s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

Figure 1: Summary of the signal-strength measurements, as published, from individual analyses that are inputs
to the combinations. The Higgs boson mass column indicates the mH value at which the result is quoted. The
overall signal strength of each analysis (black) is the combined result of the measurements for different production
processes (blue) assuming SM values for their cross-section ratios. The error bars represent ±1σ total uncertainties,
combining statistical and systematic contributions. The green shaded bands indicate the uncertainty on the overallsignal strength obtained by each analysis. The combined signal strength of the H → γγ analysis also includes thettH contribution which is listed separately under ttH production.

6

Table 3: Overview of the individual analyses that are included in the combinations described in this paper. The
signal strengths, the statistical significances of a Higgs boson signal, or the 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs
boson production rates or properties are also shown wherever appropriate. A range is quoted for the upper limiton the off-shell signal strength, depending on the assumption for the continuum gg → WW/ZZ cross section.
These results are taken directly from the individual publications. Results of the on-shell analyses are quoted for
mH = 125.36 GeV except that mH = 125.5 GeV is assumed for the H → Zγ and H → µµ analyses and thatm
√ H = 125 GeV is used for the ttH searches with H → bb̄ and ttH → multileptons. The luminosity used for thes = 7 TeV V H(→ bb̄) analysis differs slightly from the values used for other analyses because a previous versionof the luminosity calibration was applied. The significance is given in units of standard deviations (s.d.). The
numbers in parentheses are the expected values for the SM Higgs boson. The ttH analysis in the H → γγ decay ispart of the H → γγ analysis. It is included separately under the ttH√ production for completeness. The checkmark(X) indicates whether the analysis is performed for the respective s = 7 and 8 TeV dataset.
Analysis
Categorisation or final states

SignalSignificance [s.d.]Strength µR

Ldt [fb−1 ]7 TeV 8 TeV

H → γγ [9]1.17 ± 0.27
ttH: leptonic, hadronic
V H: one-lepton, dilepton, ETmiss , hadronic
VBF: tight, loose
ggF: 4 pTt categories

5.2 (4.6)

4.5
X
X
X
X

20.3
X
X
X
X

1.44+0.40−0.33

8.1 (6.2)

4.5
X
X
X

20.3
X
X
X

6.5 (5.9)

4.5
X

20.3
X
X
X
X
X

H → ZZ ∗ → 4` [10]VBF
V H: hadronic, leptonic
ggF

H → WW ∗ [11, 12]
1.16+0.24−0.21
ggF: (0-jet, 1-jet) ⊗ (ee + µµ, eµ)ggF: ≥ 2-jet and eµ
VBF: ≥ 2-jet ⊗ (ee + µµ, eµ)
V H: opposite-charge dilepton, three-lepton, four-lepton
V H: same-charge dilepton
H → ττ [14]Boosted: τlep τlep , τlep τhad , τhad τhad
VBF: τlep τlep , τlep τhad , τhad τhad

1.43+0.43
−0.37

X
X
4.5 (3.4)

4.5
X
X

20.3
X
X

V H → Vbb̄ [15]0.52 ± 0.40
1.4 (2.6)0` (ZH → ννbb̄): Njet = 2, 3, Nbtag = 1, 2, pVT ∈ 100-120 and > 120 GeV
1` (WH → `νbb̄): Njet = 2, 3, Nbtag = 1, 2, pVT < and > 120 GeV
2` (ZH → ``bb̄): Njet = 2, 3, Nbtag = 1, 2, pVT < and > 120 GeV

4.7
X
X
X

20.3
X
X
X

4.5
X
4.5
X
4.5

20.3
X
20.3
X
20.3
X
X
X

H → Zγ [16]10 categories based on ∆ηZγ and pTt
H → µµ [17]VBF and 6 other categories based on ηµ and pµµTttH production [18–20]
H → bb̄: single-lepton, dilepton
ttH →multileptons: categories on lepton multiplicity
H → γγ: leptonic, hadronic

95% CL limitµ < 11 (9)µ < 7.0 (7.2)µ < 3.4 (2.2)µ < 4.7 (2.4)µ < 6.7 (4.9)µ < 5.1 – 8.6 (6.7 – 11.0)∗

Off-shell H production [21]H ∗ → ZZ → 4`
H ∗ → ZZ → 2`2νH ∗ → WW → eνµν

7

X

20.3
X
X
X

2.1. H → γγ
In the H → γγ analysis, described in detail in Ref. [9], the Higgs boson signal is measured in events withat least two isolated and well-identified photon candidates. The leading and subleading photon candidates
are required to have ET /mγγ > 0.35 and 0.25, respectively, where mγγ is the invariant mass of the two
selected photons. The diphoton candidate events are grouped into twelve exclusive categories separately√
for the s = 7 and 8 TeV datasets; the order of categorisation is chosen to give precedence to production
modes with the most distinct signatures. Each category is optimised by adjusting the event selection
criteria to minimise the expected uncertainty on the signal yield of the targeted production mode.
The first two categories are designed for ttH production based on the topology of leptonic and hadronic
decays of the associated tt¯ pair. They are described in Section 2.8. The next four categories are optimisedfor V H production, targeting one-lepton, dilepton, ETmiss , and hadronic signatures of W and Z boson
decays. Events from VBF production are identified by requiring two well-separated and high-pT jets andlittle hadronic activity between them. A boosted decision tree (BDT) [98, 99] algorithm is employed tomaximise the VBF signal and background separation. Events are sorted into two categories with different
VBF purities according to the output value of the BDT. Finally, the remaining events are separated into
four categories based on the pseudorapidities of the photons and the pTt of the diphoton system [9], thediphoton momentum transverse to its thrust axis in the transverse plane.
For most of the categories, the background is composed of a mixture of γ–jet and jet–jet events, where one
or two jets are misidentified as photons, and γγ events. In particular the γγ background is dominant andirreducible. The Higgs boson signal is extracted from maximum-likelihood fits of a narrow resonanceplus continuum background models to unbinned diphoton invariant-mass distributions observed in the
different event categories. In the fit, the signal is modelled by the sum of a Crystal Ball function [100]and a smaller but wider Gaussian component while the backgrounds are modelled by category-dependent
exponential functions of first- or second-order polynomials.

2.2. H → ZZ ∗ → 4`
The H → ZZ ∗ → 4` analysis, described in detail in Ref. [10], has a high signal-to-background ratio,
which is about two for each of the four final states considered: 4µ, 2e2µ, 2µ2e, and 4e, where the first
lepton pair has an invariant mass closer to the Z boson mass. The analysis selects Higgs boson candidates
by requiring two pairs of isolated, same-flavour and opposite-charge leptons with one of the two pairs
having a dilepton invariant mass in the range 50 – 106 GeV.
To measure the rates of different production processes, each H → ZZ ∗ → 4` candidate is assigned to one
of four categories depending on event characteristics beyond the four selected leptons. The VBF category
consists of candidates with two additional jets with dijet mass m j j > 130 GeV. The events failing thisselection are considered for the V H-hadronic category, where the dijet mass is required to be 40 GeV <m j j < 130 GeV. Events failing the VBF and V H-hadronic categorisation criteria are considered for
the V H-leptonic category with the requirement of an additional lepton. Finally, the remaining events
are assigned to the ggF category. The separation of VBF and V H production from the dominant ggF
production mode is improved by exploiting two BDT discriminants trained on the jet kinematics, one
for the VBF category and the other for the V H-hadronic category. A third BDT discriminant basedon the four-lepton kinematics is used to improve the separation between the ggF signal and its main
background.

8The largest background comes from continuum ZZ ∗ production and is estimated using simulation normalised to the SM next-to-leading-order cross-section calculation. For the four-lepton events with an invariant mass, m4` , below about 160 GeV, there are also important background contributions from Z+jets
and tt¯ production with two prompt leptons, where the additional charged lepton candidates arise fromdecays of hadrons with b- or c-quark content, from photon conversions or from misidentified jets. Their
contributions are estimated with data-driven methods.
For each category, the signal is extracted from a maximum-likelihood fit to either the m4` distribution(V H categories) or the combined two-dimensional distributions of m4` and a BDT discriminant (ggF and
VBF categories). The four-lepton mass range of 110 GeV < m4` < 140 GeV is included in the fits.

2.3. H → WW ∗Analyses targeting the ggF, VBF, and V H production modes [11, 12] are performed for the H → WW ∗decay channel. The ggF and VBF production processes are explored through the H → WW ∗ → `ν`ν
decay and the V H process is studied in final states with two or more leptons.
The analysis of the ggF and VBF production processes [11] selects the signal candidate events by requiring two oppositely charged leptons. Candidates are categorised according to the number of jets (Njet )and to the flavours of the leptons. The Njet categorisation separates the large top-quark production background from the ggF signal while the categorisation by lepton flavours isolates the challenging Drell–Yan
background in the same-flavour categories. The categories targeting ggF production include Njet = 0, 1
and ≥ 2 and are further divided into the same- and different-flavour leptons for Njet = 0, 1. Only thedifferent-flavour leptons are considered for Njet ≥ 2. The categories targeting VBF production require
Njet ≥ 2, separately for the same- or different-flavour leptons. The primary background processes are
WW, top quark (tt¯ and Wt), W+jets, Drell–Yan, and other diboson (WZ, Wγ, Wγ∗ , and ZZ) production.
Most of the background contributions are estimated using data. For the ggF categories, the final signal
region is selected by requiring the dilepton mass m`` < 55 GeV and their azimuthal angular separation∆φ`` < 1.8 and the signal is extracted through a combined fit to the transverse mass distributions of the
dilepton plus ETmiss system in both the signal and control regions of different categories and lepton flavours. For the VBF categories, a BDT combining information such as rapidity separation and mass ofthe two leading jets and the dilepton angular separation, is used as the final discriminant, from which thesignal is extracted.
The V H analysis [12] is optimised for different lepton multiplicities: opposite-charge dileptons, samecharge dileptons, three and four leptons. Most final states are required to have ETmiss and events with ab-tagged jet are vetoed. Dilepton final states target V H production with the H → WW ∗ decay with twobosons decaying leptonically and the other hadronically. The opposite-charge dilepton final state selects
events with two or more jets, with the value of m j j required to be close to the W and Z boson masses.
Similar to the ggF Njet ≥ 2 category, the dominant background is from top quark production. The samecharge dilepton category accepts events with either one or two jets. The dominant backgrounds are from
WZ, Wγ(∗) , and W+jets production. The three-lepton final state targets WH with H → WW ∗ and has thehighest sensitivity of the four final states. The three leptons are required to have a net charge of ±1 andthe event can have at most one jet. The dominant background process is WZ production and is reducedwith a Z → `` veto. The four-lepton category is designed to accept events from ZH production with the
H → WW ∗ decay. The net charge of the leptons is required to be zero and at least one pair of leptons isrequired to have the same flavour, opposite charge, and an invariant mass close to the Z boson mass. The

9

dominant background is SM ZZ ∗ production. In the three-lepton category, the signal yield is extracted
through fits to distributions of a BDT or the minimum separation in the η − φ plane between oppositecharge leptons depending on the lepton flavours. For other categories, the event yields are used, without
exploiting information on the shapes of distributions.

2.4. H → ττ
The H → ττ analysis [14] considers both the leptonic (τlep ) and hadronic (τhad ) decays of the τ lepton.
Three sub-channels (τlep τlep , τlep τhad and τhad τhad ) are defined by orthogonal requirements on the numberof reconstructed hadronic τ decays and leptons (electrons or muons) in the event.1
Candidate events are divided into boosted and VBF categories. The boosted category targets signal events
where the Higgs boson is produced with a large boost, primarily from the gluon fusion process, andrequires the transverse momentum of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate to be greater than 100 GeV.
The VBF category contains events with two jets separated in pseudorapidity and targets signal events
produced through the vector boson fusion process. A separate BDT is then employed in each category
and sub-channel to discriminate signal from background, utilising between five and nine input variables,
chosen in order to exploit discriminating features such as Higgs boson decay properties, event activity, andthe VBF topology in the corresponding category. One of the most important input variables is the massof the ττ system, which is quite challenging to reconstruct due to the presence of at least two neutrinos in
the final state; the Missing Mass Calculator [101] is used for this purpose.
In all three sub-channels, the most important backgrounds are irreducible Z → ττ events, and events with
one or two jets misidentified as τ lepton decay products (primarily from multijet and W+jets production).
To estimate the Z → ττ background the embedding technique [102] is used, where Z → µµ events are
selected in data and the reconstructed muons are replaced by simulated τ lepton decays. Fully data-driven
techniques are used for the estimation of backgrounds from misidentified τ decay products, while Monte
Carlo simulation corrected to data is used for other backgrounds, such as the top quark and Z → ``production.
The signal is extracted by fitting the shape of the BDT discriminant with signal and background templates
simultaneously in all signal regions. The fit also includes dedicated control regions enriched with top
quark, Z → `` and multijet events. These control regions are used to constrain normalisations of thecorresponding backgrounds.

2.5. VH with H → b b̄
The H → bb̄ decay mode is predicted in the SM to have the largest branching ratio (see Table 1). In spiteof this large branching ratio, an inclusive search for H → bb̄ is not feasible because of the overwhelming
background from multijet production. Associated production of a Higgs boson with a vector boson V(W or Z), offers a viable alternative because leptonic decays of the vector boson, W → `ν, Z → ``, andZ → νν, can be efficiently used for triggering and background reduction.
The search for associated V H production with H → bb̄ [15] is performed for events containing zero,one, or two charged leptons. Contributions from W → τν and Z → ττ decays in which the τ leptons
1

For events with two leptons, a requirement on the invariant mass of the ττ system reconstructed via the collinear approximation
also ensures orthogonality with the H → WW ∗ → `ν`ν analysis.

10subsequently decay to electrons or muons are also included. A b-tagging algorithm is used to identify
jets from H → bb̄ decays. To improve the sensitivity, the three channels are each split into categories
according to the vector-boson transverse momentum, pVT , the number of jets, and the number and qualityof the b-tagged jets. Topological and kinematic selection criteria are applied within each of the resulting
categories. The categories providing most of the sensitivity are those requiring two b-tagged jets andlarge pVT . The categories with low sensitivity are used to constrain the contributions of the dominantbackground processes.
A binned profile maximum-likelihood fit to all categories simultaneously is used to extract the signal
yield and the background normalisations. The most significant background sources are V+heavy-flavourjet production and tt¯ production. The normalisations of these backgrounds are fully determined by the
likelihood fit. Other significant background sources are single-top-quark and diboson (WZ and ZZ) production, with normalisations from theory, as well as multijet events. The shapes of all backgrounds are
estimated from simulation, except for the multijet background for which the shape and normalisation are
obtained using multijet-enriched control samples.
Two versions of the analysis are performed. In the dijet-mass analysis, the mass of the dijet system of btagged jets is the final discriminating variable used in the statistical analysis. In the multivariate analysis(MVA), which incorporates various kinematic variables in addition to the dijet mass and the b-tagging
information, the outputs of boosted decision trees provide the final discriminating variable. Since the√
MVA has higher expected sensitivity, it is chosen as the nominal analysis for the s = 8 TeV dataset to√
extract the final results. For the s = 7 TeV dataset, only a dijet-mass analysis is performed.
√
The s = 7 TeV V H(→ bb̄) analysis uses a previous version of the luminosity calibration and therefore
has a slightly different luminosity value compared with those quoted for other analyses. However, thissmall difference is expected to have negligible effects on the results presented in this paper.

2.6. H → Zγ
The H → Zγ analysis [16] with Z → `` searches for a narrow peak in the reconstructed ``γ invariant-mass
distribution around 125 GeV over a smooth background. The Z+γ production, Z → ``γ radiative decays
and Z+jets events where a jet is misidentified as a photon dominate the background contributions.
The analysis selects two isolated leptons of same flavour and opposite charge and one isolated photon.
Due to the kinematics of the decay, low pT thresholds are applied to the leptons and the photon. The
invariant mass of the dilepton system must satisfy m`` > mZ − 10 GeV and the three-body invariant mass
must be consistent with the mass of the Higgs boson. To enhance the sensitivity of the analysis, events areclassified into categories with different signal-to-background ratios and invariant-mass resolutions, basedon the pseudorapidity difference ∆ηZγ between the photon and the Z boson and pTt , the component of the
Higgs boson candidate pT that is orthogonal to the Zγ thrust axis in the transverse plane.
The final discrimination between signal and background events is based on a simultaneous likelihood fit√
to the m``γ spectra in each category, separately for the s = 7 and 8 TeV datasets. Similar to the H → γγ
analysis (Section 2.1), the signal is modelled with the sum of a Crystal Ball function and a smaller
but wider Gaussian component while the backgrounds are modelled with polynomials, or exponentiatedpolynomials depending on categories.

112.7. H → µµ
The H → µµ analysis [17] searches for a narrow peak in the dimuon invariant mass mµµ distribution overa smooth background, where the width of the signal is dominated by the experimental resolution. The
mass spectrum is dominated by the continuously falling background due to Z/γ∗ production, with smaller
contributions from top quark and diboson production.
The selected events containing a pair of oppositely charged muons are separated into seven mutually
exclusive categories based on the VBF dijet signature, the muon pseudorapidity ηµ , and the transverseµµ
momentum of the dimuon system pT . The events with two or more jets that match selections designed
for the VBF process are accepted in the VBF signal region. All other selected events are split up into sixµµ
categories based on the values of ηµ and pT . This categorisation takes advantage of the higher momentumµµ
resolution for muons reconstructed in the central part of the detector, and high pT for the expected SM
signal.
The mµµ distribution in the 110–160 GeV region is fitted with an analytic signal-plus-background model√
separately for the s = 7 and 8 TeV datasets, setting a limit on the dimuon decay of the SM Higgs
boson with a mass of 125.5 GeV. In the fit, the signal is modelled as the sum of a Crystal Ball function and a Gaussian function in all regions while the backgrounds are modelled using exponentials or
polynomials.

2.8. t t H production
Searches for qq̄/gg → tt¯H production have been performed with three analyses targeting the Higgs boson
decays H → bb̄, H → (WW ∗ , ττ, ZZ ∗ ) → leptons, and H → γγ. The search in the H → γγ decay mode√√
uses both s = 7 and 8 TeV data, while the other two use only the s = 8 TeV data.
The search for ttH production with H → bb̄ [18] considers two separate selections optimised for singlelepton and dilepton final states of tt¯ decays. In the single-lepton channel, events are required to have
one isolated electron or muon and at least four jets. In the dilepton channel, events are required to have
two opposite-charge leptons (ee, µµ or eµ) and at least two jets; events consistent with originating froma Z → `` decay are rejected. In both cases at least two b-tagged jets are required. Candidate events are
categorised according to the jet and b-jet multiplicities with a total of nine (six) categories for the singlelepton (dilepton) final states. The background is dominated by tt¯+jets events, with increasing fractions oftt¯bb̄ and tt¯cc̄ at the higher b-jet multiplicities characteristic of signal events. The analysis uses a neuralnetwork to discriminate signal from background in the most signal-like categories. Simpler kinematic
discriminants are used in background-like categories.
The ttH search with H → WW ∗ , ττ and ZZ ∗ decays [19] exploits several multilepton signatures resulting
from leptonic decays of vector bosons and/or the presence of τ leptons. The events are categorised by
the number of reconstructed electrons or muons and hadronic τ candidates. The five channels used inthis combination are: one lepton with two hadronic τ candidates, two same-charge leptons with zero or
one hadronic τ candidate, three leptons, and four leptons. The largest backgrounds in the analysis are
non-prompt leptons, primarily arising from semileptonic b-hadron decays in tt¯ events; electron charge
misreconstruction in events where opposite-charge leptons are produced; and the production of ttW andttZ (ttV). The potential signal is determined from the numbers of observed events in data and of theestimated number of background events.

12

The ttH search in the H → γγ channel [20] is part of the H → γγ analysis (see Section 2.1) and employs
the same diphoton selection. The leptonic as well as fully hadronic decay signatures of the tt¯ system areconsidered. The leptonic selection requires at least one lepton and one b-tagged jet as well as ETmiss . In
the hadronic selection, different combinations of jet and b-tagging multiplicities are applied to improve
the signal sensitivity. The small contribution from ggF, VBF and V H production is estimated from Monte
Carlo simulation. The ttH signal is extracted from a fit to the observed diphoton mass distribution.

2.9. Off-shell Higgs boson production
Measurements of the H ∗ → ZZ and H ∗ → WW final states in the mass range above the 2mZ and 2mWthresholds (off-shell region) provide a unique opportunity to measure the off-shell coupling strengths ofthe observed Higgs boson, as discussed in Refs. [103–106]. The ZZ → 4`, ZZ → 2`2ν and WW → eνµν√
final states in the s = 8 TeV dataset are used in these measurements, detailed in Ref. [21]. Assuming therelevant Higgs boson coupling strengths are independent of the energy scale of Higgs boson production,
a combination with the on-shell measurements can be interpreted as a constraint on the total width of the
Higgs boson.
The analysis in the ZZ → 4` final state follows closely the Higgs boson measurements in the same
final state, described in Section 2.2, with the same object definitions, event selections and backgroundestimation methods. The off-peak region is defined to include the range 220 GeV < m4` < 1000 GeV.
Like the H → ZZ ∗ → 4` analysis, the background is dominated by qq̄/gg → ZZ production. A matrixelement-based discriminant [21] is constructed to enhance the gg → H ∗ → ZZ signal and is used in abinned maximum-likelihood fit for the final result.
The analysis in the ZZ → 2`2ν channel follows closely the ZH analysis with the Higgs boson decaying to weakly interacting particles [28], with the same object definitions. As the analysis is performed
inclusively in the number of jets in the final states, kinematic cuts are optimised accordingly. SM ZZ
and WZ production are the major backgrounds. The transverse mass (mZZ
T ) [21], reconstructed from themomentum of the dilepton system and the missing transverse momentum, is chosen as the discriminating
variable. Events in the range of 380 GeV < mZZ
T < 1000 GeV are used in a binned maximum likelihood
fit for the final result.
The analysis in the WW → eνµν channel follows closely the Higgs boson measurements in the oppositely
charged electron–muon pair final state, described in Section 2.3, with the same object definitions. The
analysis is performed inclusively in the number of jets in the final state, and selections are optimised forthe off-shell region with revised background estimation methods. Top quark pairs and WW events constitute the major backgrounds. In order to isolate the off-shell Higgs boson production while minimisingsensitivity to higher-order QCD effects on gg → WW kinematics, a new variable R8 [12], defined as theweighted combination of the dilepton mass and the transverse mass of the dilepton and ETmiss system, isconstructed to select the signal region. The final results are obtained from the numbers of events observedin the data and expected from background processes in the signal region of R8 > 450 GeV.

2.10. Modifications of analyses
To ensure a consistent interpretation of all inputs in terms of Higgs boson coupling strengths, several
minor modifications were made to the inputs of these combinations with respect to their previously published versions:13• The upper limits on the H → Zγ and H → µµ decays and the results of the ttH searches in H → bb̄
and ttH → multilepton decays have been updated to assume a Higgs boson mass of 125.36 GeV.
• In some individual analyses, cross-feed of other Higgs boson decays occurs: in the V H, H → WW ∗selection cross-feed of H → ττ and H → ZZ ∗ occurs (whereas this cross-feed is negligible in the
ggF and VBF H → WW ∗ analyses where a veto on the reconstructed ττ mass is applied). Similarly,
there is cross-feed from H → WW ∗ in the H → ττ analysis. In such cases, this cross-feed wastreated as background in the relevant individual channel analyses. For the combinations describedin this paper, such events are interpreted as signal from the corresponding Higgs boson decay.
• The rate of gg → ZH events in the V H channels is parameterised in terms of Higgs boson coupling√strengths to Z bosons and top quarks, following the calculations of Ref. [58] for s = 7 and 8 TeV.
• The rate of tH events in all the ttH channels is parameterised in terms of Higgs boson couplingstrengths to W bosons and top quarks.
• In the standalone analysis of the ttH channels, small contributions from Higgs boson decays tothe cc̄ and gg final states are explicitly modelled. To avoid spurious sensitivity due to these verysmall components in the combined analyses presented in this paper, both aforementioned decays
are treated like H → bb̄ in the fits for the Higgs boson signal strength. In fits for Higgs boson
coupling strengths, it is assumed that the coupling strengths of the H → cc̄ and H → gg decays
scale as the tt¯ → H and gg → H couplings, respectively.
• Theoretical uncertainties from QCD scales in Higgs boson signal processes have been updated to beconsistent with the latest recommendations [32] for H → WW ∗ , bb̄, ττ and Zγ. No modifications
were needed for the H→ γγ and H → ZZ ∗ channels.
• In channels where bbH production was not explicitly modelled, the signal strength of ggF is redefined to include this process. In channels where bbH was modelled explicitly (H → γγ, ZZ ∗ ),ggF and bbH production are correlated with their ratio fixed to the SM value, allowing a consistenttreatment of bbH production across all channels. The impact of this average scaling on the results
is negligible since, as can be seen in Table 3, the bbH production process has a cross section which
is only 1% of the ggF production in the SM.
• The off-shell analysis depends on the unknown K-factor from higher-order QCD corrections forthe gg → VV background process. In the case of the very similar Higgs boson signal gg → H ∗ →VV production process, a K-factor between 0.5 and 2 is expected, as discussed in Ref. [21]. The
results are given as a function of the unknown ratio of the K-factors for gg → VV background and
B . The range 0.5–2.0 is chosen as a systematic uncertainty on R B .
gg → H ∗ → VV signal, RH∗
H∗

3. Statistical procedure
The statistical treatment of the data is described in Refs. [107–111]. Hypothesis testing and confidence
intervals are based on the Λ(α) profile likelihood ratio [112] test statistic. The test statistic depends on
one or more parameters of interest α, such as the Higgs boson signal strength µ normalised to the SM

14expectation (Eq. (1)), Higgs boson mass mH , coupling strength scale factors κ and their ratios λ, as wellas on additional parameters θ that are not of interest,Λ(α) =ˆ 
L α , θ̂(α)
L(α̂, θ̂).

(4)

The likelihood functions in the numerator and denominator of the above equation are built using sums ofsignal and background probability density functions (pdfs) of the discriminating variables, introduced in
Section 2. The pdfs are derived from MC simulation for the signal and from both data and simulation forthe background. Likelihood fits to the observed data are done for the parameters of interest. The single
circumflex in Eq. (4) denotes the unconditional maximum-likelihood estimate of a parameter, i.e. both theparameters of interest and the nuisance parameters are varied to maximise the likelihood function. The
double circumflex denotes a conditional maximum-likelihood estimate, i.e. an estimate for given fixedvalues of the parameters of interest α.
Systematic uncertainties and their correlations [107] are modelled by introducing nuisance parametersθ described by likelihood functions associated with the estimate of the corresponding effect. Systematic uncertainties that affect multiple measurements are modelled with common nuisance parameters to
propagate the effect of these uncertainties coherently to all measurements. Most experimental systematic√
uncertainties are modelled independently for the s = 7 and 8 TeV data samples, reflecting independent assessments of these uncertainties, but a subset of these uncertainties, e.g. material effects and somecomponents of the jet energy scale, are considered common to the two data taking periods and are correspondingly described by a common set of nuisance parameters.
Components of theoretical uncertainties, scale uncertainties of a given Higgs boson production process
as well as PDF-induced uncertainties, that affect the inclusive signal rate are described with common
nuisance parameters in all channels, whereas components of theoretical uncertainties that affect the acceptance of individual channels are modelled with separate nuisance parameters for each decay channel.
Specifically, since PDF-induced uncertainties and scale uncertainties are described by separate nuisanceparameters, these uncertainties are effectively treated as uncorrelated. The PDF uncertainties of the inclusive rates are treated as correlated for WH, ZH and VBF production, as anti-correlated for gg → ZH
and qq → ZH production and as uncorrelated for ggF and ttH production. A cross check with the fullcorrelation matrix as given in Ref. [32] show no differences larger than 1% for the most generic model(Section 5.5.3). Similarly, the effects of correlations between Higgs boson branching ratios and partial
decay widths have been determined to be negligible, and are ignored in the combinations, except forthe branching ratios to WW ∗ and ZZ ∗ which are treated as fully correlated. When results are provided
with a breakdown of the systematic uncertainties in experimental and theoretical uncertainties, the theoretical uncertainties correspond to the influence of all nuisance parameters that can affect Higgs boson
signal distributions, e.g. parton density functions related to Higgs boson production, QCD scale uncertainties related to Higgs boson production processes and uncertainties on the Higgs boson branchingratios. Theoretical uncertainties that exclusively affect background samples are included in the systematic
uncertainty components.
The choice of the parameters of interest depends on the test under consideration, with the remaining
parameters being “profiled", i.e., similarly to nuisance parameters they are set to the values that maximise
the likelihood function for the given fixed values of the parameters of interest.
Asymptotically, a test statistic −2 ln Λ(α) of several parameters of interest α is distributed as a χ2 distribution with n degrees of freedom, where n is the dimensionality of the vector α. In particular, the 100(1−β)%15confidence level (CL) contours are defined by −2 ln Λ(α) < kβ , where kβ satisfies P(χ2n > kβ ) = β. For
one degree of freedom the 68% and 95% CL intervals are given by −2 ln Λ(α) = 1.0 and 4.0, respectively.
For two degrees of freedom the 68% and 95% CL contours are given by −2 ln Λ(α) = 2.3 and 6.0, respectively. All results presented in the following sections are based on likelihood evaluations and give CLintervals under asymptotic approximation.2 For selected parameters of interest a physical boundary on theparameter values is included in the statistical interpretation. For example, branching ratio parameters canconceptually not be smaller than zero. The 95% confidence interval quoted for such parameters is thenbased on the profile likelihood ratio restricted to the allowed region of parameter space; the confidence
interval is defined by the standard χ2 cutoff, which leads to some over-coverage near the boundaries.
For the measurements in the following sections the compatibility with the Standard Model, pSM , is quantified using the p-value3 obtained from the profile likelihood ratio Λ(α = αSM ), where α is the set ofparameters of interest and αSM are their Standard Model values. For a given benchmark coupling model,
α is the set of Higgs boson coupling scale factors κi and ratios of coupling scale factors λi j probed by thatmodel, where the indices i, j refer to the parameters of interest of the model (see Section 5). All otherparameters are treated as independent nuisance parameters.

4. Signal-strength measurements
This section discusses the measurements of the signal-strength parameter µ of different production modes
and decay channels as well as their ratios for a fixed Higgs boson mass hypothesis of mH = 125.36 GeV [23].
The signal-strength parameter is a measure of potential deviations from the SM prediction under the assumption that the Higgs boson production and decay kinematics do not change appreciably from the SM
expectations. In particular, the transverse momentum and rapidity distributions of the Higgs boson are assumed to be those predicted for the SM Higgs boson by state-of-the-art event generators and calculationsof each production process. This assumption is corroborated by studies such as the measurements of differential production cross sections [113, 114] and tests of spin and CP properties of the Higgs boson [24,115].
For the discussion in this section, bbH is assumed to have the same signal strength as ggF, tH the sameas ttH, and gg → ZH the same as qq̄ → ZH, unless noted otherwise. The ggF and bbH processes leadto similar event signatures and no attempt is made to separate them in the analyses, thus the assumptionof equal signal strength implies that the observed ggF signal is interpreted as a mixture of bbH and ggF
events following their SM ratio of cross sections. The ttH and tH events have similar topologies. The
gg → ZH process leads to the same final state as the qq̄ → ZH process. Whenever WH and ZH are
combined into V H, their signal strengths are assumed to be the same.

4.1. Global signal strength
In Section 2, the published ATLAS measurements on Higgs boson production and decay modes based on
individual final states as well as the changes since their publication are summarised. Figure 2 shows the
updated measurements of the signal-strength parameter µ from a simultaneous fit to all decay channels
23Whenever probabilities are translated into the number of Gaussian standard deviations the two-sided convention is chosen.
The p-value is defined as the probability to obtain a value of the test statistic that is at least as high as the observed value,
under the hypothesis that is being tested.

16

analysed, assuming SM values for the cross-section ratios of different Higgs boson production processes(or equivalently all µi ’s of Eq. (2) are set to be equal). In the fit, the SM predictions of the signal yields are
scaled by decay-dependent signal-strength parameters, independent of production processes. Comparedto the separate measurements shown in Fig. 1, small changes are observed, resulting from the assignmentof the Higgs boson yields in the ttH searches to appropriate decay channels, namely H → WW ∗ , H → ττand H → bb̄.4 The central values all increase slightly due to the high observed signal-strength values of
the ttH searches, but the uncertainties are barely improved because of the limited significance obtained
for the ttH production process with the current dataset. The most significant change in the signal strengthis observed for the H → bb̄ decay. The combination of the V H(→ bb̄) analysis and the ttH(→ bb̄)
search leads to an observed (expected) significance of 1.8 (2.8) standard deviations for the H → bb̄ decay
channel.
Assuming a multiplier common to all decay modes, signal-strength measurements of individual decay
modes can be combined to give a global and more precise measurement, providing the simplest consistency test with the SM expectation. Combining all measurements using the profile likelihood ratio Λ(µ)
results in a global signal-strength value of+0.08µ = 1.18 +0.15−0.14 = 1.18 ± 0.10 (stat.) ± 0.07 (syst.) −0.07 (theo.),

where the labels stat., syst. and theo. refer to statistical, systematic, and signal theoretical uncertainties,
respectively. The signal theoretical uncertainty includes contributions from uncertainties in SM crosssections and branching ratios as well as in the modelling of the production and decays of the Higgs
boson, as discussed in Section 3. The theoretical uncertainties of background processes are included in
the uncertainty labelled as systematic uncertainty.
The uncertainty on the global signal strength has comparable statistical and systematic components and issignificantly reduced compared to the individual measurements, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Here, the largest
source of experimental systematic uncertainty is from background estimates in the analyses of individual
channels. This result is consistent with the SM expectation of µ = 1, with a p-value of 18%, All individual
measurements of the signal-strength parameters are consistent and compatible with the combined value,with a p-value of 76%.
√
Performing independent combinations of measurements at s = 7 and 8 TeV independently lead tosignal-strength values of
+0.28
+0.13
+0.08
µ(7 TeV) = 0.75 +0.32−0.29 = 0.75 −0.26 (stat.) −0.11 (syst.) −0.05 (theo.), and
+0.08
+0.10
µ(8 TeV) = 1.28 +0.17−0.15 = 1.28 ± 0.11 (stat.) −0.07 (syst.) −0.08 (theo.)√at these two energies. The relative theoretical uncertainty of ∼ 7% on the measured µ value at s = 8 TeV
arises predominantly from the uncertainty on the total cross section, but is nevertheless smaller than thecorresponding uncertainty of ∼ 9% on the total SM cross section shown in Table 1, because µ is effectively
a weighted average of the signal-strength measurements in all categories: the contributions from VBF
and V H production, which have comparatively small theoretical uncertainties, have larger weights in thisaverage than in the total cross section.

4

The measurement of the qq̄/gg → tt¯H signal strength in the multiple-lepton decay mode contributes to all final states withleptons in Fig. 2, according to the prediction of MC simulation, i.e. predominantly to the H → WW ∗ and H → ZZ ∗ final
states.

17

σ(stat.)sys inc.
σ(theory )σ(theory)

ATLAS
mH = 125.36 GeV
H → γγµ = 1.17+0.28-0.26

H → ZZ*µ = 1.46+0.40-0.34

H → WW*µ = 1.18+0.24-0.21

H → ττ
µ = 1.44+0.42-0.37

H → bbµ = 0.63+0.39-0.37

H → µµµ = -0.7+3.7-3.7

H → Zγµ = 2.7+4.6-4.5

Combinedµ = 1.18+0.15-0.14

s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1

Total uncertainty± 1σ on µ+ 0.23- 0.23+ 0.16- 0.11+ 0.12- 0.08+ 0.35- 0.31+ 0.19- 0.13+ 0.18- 0.11+ 0.16- 0.16+ 0.17- 0.14+ 0.13- 0.09+ 0.30- 0.29+ 0.29- 0.23+ 0.16- 0.10+ 0.31- 0.30+ 0.24- 0.23+ 0.09- 0.07
+ 3.6
- 3.6
+ 0.5
- 0.7
+ 0.4
- 0.4
+ 4.3
- 4.2
+ 1.7
- 1.3
+ 1.1
- 0.3

+ 0.10- 0.10+ 0.11- 0.10+ 0.08- 0.07

−1

0

1

2

3

Signal strength (µ)

s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

Figure 2: The observed signal strengths and uncertainties for different Higgs boson decay channels and their combination for mH = 125.36 GeV. Higgs boson signals corresponding to the same decay channel are combined together
for all analyses, assuming SM values for the cross-section ratios of different production processes. The best-fit values are shown by the solid vertical lines. The total ±1σ uncertainties are indicated by green shaded bands, with
the individual contributions from the statistical uncertainty (top), the total (experimental and theoretical) systematic
uncertainty (middle), and the signal theoretical uncertainty (bottom) on the signal strength shown as horizontal error
bars.

4.2. Individual production processes
In addition to the signal strengths of different decay channels, the signal strengths of different production
modes are also determined, exploiting the sensitivity offered by the use of event categories in the analysesof all channels.
The Higgs boson production modes can be probed with four signal-strength parameters: µggF , µVBF ,µV H and µttH , one for each main production mode, combining Higgs boson signals from different decay
channels under the assumption of SM values for the ratios of the branching ratios of different Higgs
boson decays. This assumption is equivalent to set all µ f ’s in Eq. (2) to be equal. The SM predictions of
the signal yields are scaled by these four production-dependent parameters. The best-fit values of these√√parameters for the s = 8 TeV data separately and in combination with the s = 7 TeV data are shown18

in Table 4. Uncertainty components from statistics, systematics, and signal theory are also shown. The
accuracy with which the uncertainties are broken down is limited by the precision of the fit and more
importantly by the approximations made in individual analyses when neglecting uncertainties which are√small with respect to, e.g., the statistical uncertainty. The s = 7 and 8 TeV combined values with their√
total uncertainties are also illustrated in Fig. 3. The s = 7 TeV data are included in the combinations
only, as they have limited statistical power to distinguish between different production modes. The signalstrength measurements are in reasonable agreement with the SM predictions of unity. Although the results
support the SM prediction of the ttH production (see Section 4.4), this production process remains to be
firmly established in future LHC runs. Thus, a 95% CL upper limit on its signal strength is also derived.
Combining the results from various analyses with sensitivity to ttH production, the observed and expected
limits are µttH < 3.2 and 1.4, respectively.
Table 4: Measured
their total ±1σ uncertainties
for different production√ signal strengths µ at mH = 125.36 GeV and √√modes for the s = 8 TeV data and the combination with the s = 7 TeV data. The s = 7 TeV data do not havesufficient statistical power to yield meaningful measurements for individual production modes, but are included in
the combination. Shown in the square brackets are uncertainty components: statistical (first), systematic (second)and signal theoretical (third) uncertainties. These results are derived using SM values for the ratios of branchingratios of different Higgs boson decay channels.

Production
process
ggF
VBF
VH
ttH

Signal strength µ at mH = 125.36 GeV√
s = 8 TeV
Combined s = 7 and 8 TeVhihi+0.16 +0.10 +0.16+0.14 +0.09 +0.16
1.23 +0.25
1.23 +0.23
−0.21
−0.20
−0.14 −0.08 −0.12−0.16 −0.08 −0.11iihh+0.13 +0.11+0.32 +0.17 +0.13
1.23 ± 0.32 +0.28
1.55+0.39−0.27 −0.12 −0.09−0.31 −0.13 −0.11
−0.35
h
i
h
i
+0.20 +0.12+0.17 +0.10
0.93 ± 0.39 +0.37
0.80 ± 0.36 +0.31−0.33 −0.18 −0.06−0.30 −0.17 −0.05iihh+0.58 +0.31+0.58 +0.28
1.81 ± 0.80 +0.52
1.62 ± 0.78 +0.51−0.50 −0.55 −0.12−0.50 −0.54 −0.10√√
Table 5: Measured cross sections of different Higgs boson production processes at s = 8 TeV for mH =125.36 GeV obtained from the signal-strength values of Table 4. Their SM predictions can be found in Table 1.
Shown in the square brackets are uncertainty components: statistical (first), systematic (second) and signal theoretical (third) uncertainties. The theoretical uncertainties here arise from the modelling of Higgs boson production
and decays. These results are derived using the SM values of the Higgs boson decay branching ratios.

Production process
ggF
VBF
VH
ttH

√
Cross section [pb] at s = 8 TeVhi+1.9 +1.0
23.9 ± 3.6 +3.1
−3.1 −1.6 −1.0hi+0.27 +0.19
2.43 ± 0.58 +0.50−0.49 −0.20 −0.16hi+0.22 +0.13
1.03 ± 0.53 +0.37−0.36 −0.20 −0.06
hi+0.08 +0.01
0.24 ± 0.11 +0.07−0.07 −0.08 −0.01

The signal-strength measurements shown in Table 4 are extrapolated to total cross-section measurements√
for each production process, as shown in Table 5 for s = 8 TeV, with the further assumption of SM val-

19

ATLAS
68% C L:√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb

95% C L:√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

−1

−1

+0.23

μ ggF = 1.23−0.20
μVBF = 1.23 ± 0.32
μ VH = 0.80 ± 0.36
μ ttH = 1.81 ± 0.80m H = 125.36 GeV
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Signal strength (μ)

Figure 3: The best-fit signal-strength values of different production modes determined from the combined fit to the√s = 7 and 8 TeV data. Higgs boson signals corresponding to the same production process but from different decay
channels are combined together, assuming SM values for the ratios of the branching ratios of different Higgs boson
decay channels. The inner and outer error bars correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals. Total uncertainties
combining statistical, experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

ues for the Higgs boson decay branching ratios. The theoretical uncertainties on the absolute values of the
SM Higgs boson production cross sections are thereby removed, but significant theoretical uncertainties
remain, related to the modelling of the Higgs boson production and of the acceptance of the event selection. One can sum the different cross sections to obtain an overall extrapolated cross section for Higgs√
boson production. The measurement is performed at s = 7 TeV as well despite of the limited statisticalpower of the dataset. The resulting total Higgs boson production cross sections at the two energies are
σH (7 TeV)

= 22.1 +7.4
pb
−6.0

+2.7
+1.9
= 22.1 +6.7
−5.3 (stat.) −2.3 (syst.) −1.4 (theo.) pb, and+1.2
σH (8 TeV) = 27.7 ± 3.7 pb = 27.7 ± 3.0 (stat.) +2.0
−1.7 (syst.) −0.9 (theo.) pb ,to be compared with the theoretical predictions of 17.4 ± 1.6 pb at√
s = 8 TeV, as shown in Table 1.

√

s = 7 TeV and 22.3 ± 2.0 pb at

These cross sections are different from what one would naively expect from the global signal-strength val√ues discussed in Section 4.1, particularly for s = 7 TeV. The differences are largely the result of analysis
categorisation. Categories often explore production processes or phase-space regions with distinct signalevent topologies. The resulting high signal-to-background ratios can significantly improve the precisionof the signal-strength measurements. However, these categories often account for small fractions of the
production cross section and thus have limited impact on the total cross-section measurement, which isdominated by processes with larger expected cross sections. One good example is the VBF category. It
contributes significantly to the global signal-strength measurement, but has a relatively minor impact on
the total cross-section measurement.

20

4.3. Boson and fermion-mediated production processes
The Higgs boson production processes can be categorised into two groups according to the Higgs boson
couplings to fermions (ggF and ttH) or vector bosons (VBF and V H). Potential deviations from the SM
f
f
f
f
f
f
can be tested with two signal-strength parameters, µggF+ttH ≡ (µggF = µttH ) and µVBF+V H ≡ (µVBF = µV H )for each decay channel f , assuming SM values for the ratio of ggF and ttH cross sections and the ratioof VBF and VH cross sections. Signal contaminations from one group to another, e.g. ggF events with
two jets passing the VBF selection, are taken into account in the simultaneous fit. The 68% and 95% CLff
two-dimensional contours of µggF+ttH and µVBF+V H of the five main decay channels are shown in Fig. 4.
The measurements of H → µµ and H → Zγ decays have relatively poor sensitivities and are therefore
not included in the figure. The cutoff in the contours of the H→ γγ and H → ZZ ∗ decays is caused by
the expected sum of signal and background yields in one of the contributing measurements going belowfzero in some regions of the parameter space shown in Fig. 4. The SM expectation of µggF+ttH = 1 andfµf

VBF+VHµVBF+V H = 1 is within the 68% CL contour of most of these measurements.

7
6
5

ATLAS

Standard Model
Best fit
68% CL
95% CLs = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1
H → WW*

4

H → ZZ*
H → bb3

H → γγH → ττ

2
1
0
−1
−2
−2

mH = 125.36 GeV

−1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6
µf

7

ggF+ttHff
Figure 4: Likelihood contours in the (µggF+ttH, µVBF+V
H ) plane for a Higgs boson mass mH = 125.36 GeV measured∗∗
separately for H → WW , ZZ , bb̄, γγ and ττ decays. SM values are assumed for the relative contributions between
ggF and ttH and between VBF and V H production. The straight lower portions of the H → γγ and H → ZZ ∗ → 4`
contours are due to the small numbers of events in these channels and the requirement of a positive probability
density function. The best-fit values to the data (+) and the 68% (full) and 95% (dashed) CL contours are indicated,
as well as the SM expectation (?).

The relative production cross sections of the processes mediated by vector bosons and by fermions canff
be tested using the ratio µVBF+V H /µggF+ttH . When measured separately for each decay channel, this ratio
reduces to the ratio of production cross sections because the Higgs boson decay branching ratios cancel

21

and is equivalent to the ratio of µi defined in Section 4.1, i.e.,fµVBF+V H
fµggF+ttH=hσVBF+V H /σggF+ttH
σVBF+V H /σggF+ttH

=

i
SM

µVBF+V H≡ Rf f .
µggF+ttH(5)

The observed ratios are shown in Table 6 and illustrated in Fig. 5 for the five main decay channels. Thefsignal-strength parameter µggF+ttH of each decay channel is profiled in the fit. The combination of thesemeasurements yields an overall value of the ratio of cross sections for the vector-boson- and fermionmediated processes (relative to its SM prediction):
+0.33
+0.20
+0.18
RCombined = 0.96 +0.43−0.31 = 0.96 −0.26 (stat.) −0.13 (syst.) −0.10 (theo.).

Table 6: The best-fit values and their uncertainties for the ratio R f f of cross sections for the vector-boson- andfermion-mediated production processes relative to their SM values at mH = 125.36 GeV for the individual decay
channels and their combination. Shown in the square brackets are uncertainty components: statistical (first), systematic (second) and signal theoretical (third) uncertainties. These results are independent of the Higgs boson decaybranching ratios.

Decay channel
H → γγH → ZZ ∗H → WW ∗H → ττ
H → bb̄
Combined

Cross-section ratio R f fhi+0.62 +0.15 +0.18
0.56 +0.66−0.45 −0.42 −0.09 −0.15hi+1.16 +0.23 +0.23
0.18 +1.20−0.52 −0.50 −0.05 −0.16ih+0.63 +0.37 +0.31
1.47 +0.80−0.54 −0.47 −0.19 −0.18hi+1.36 +1.68 +0.39
0.81 +2.19−0.49 −0.41 −0.15 −0.23hi+0.39 +0.94 +0.18
0.33 +1.03−0.25 −0.20 −0.14 −0.06ih+0.33 +0.20 +0.18
0.96 +0.43−0.31 −0.26 −0.13 −0.10

22ATLAS
68% CL:√ = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb

95% CL:√ = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

−1

−1

+0.66

R γγ = 0.56 −0.45+1.20

R ZZ ∗ = 0.18−0.52+0.80

R WW ∗ = 1.47−0.54+2.19

R ττ = 0.81 −0.49+1.03

R bb = 0.33−0.25+0.43

R Combined = 0.96 −0.31−1mH = 125.36 GeV
−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2
2.5
3
3.5
σ VBF+VH /σggF+ttH
R = [σVBF+VH /σ ggF+ttH]SM

Figure 5: The ratios of cross sections for the vector-boson- and fermion-mediated processes relative to their SM
values at mH = 125.36 GeV, measured in the individual Higgs boson decay final states and their combination,
RCombined (see text). The inner and outer error bars represent 68% CL and 95% CL intervals, combining statisticaland systematic uncertainties. These measurements are independent of Higgs boson decay branching ratios.

23

4.4. Ratios of production cross sections and partial decay widths
At the LHC, the Higgs boson production cross sections and decay branching ratios cannot be separately
determined in a model-independent way as only their products are measured. However, the ratios ofcross sections and ratios of branching ratios can be disentangled without any assumptions, within thevalidity of the narrow width approximation of the Higgs boson. By normalising to the cross section of the
gg → H → WW ∗ production process, σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ), the yields of other Higgs boson production
modes and decay channels can be parameterised using the ratios of cross sections and ratios of branchingratios. For the production and decay i → H → f , the yield is then
!
!
!
!


BR f
Γf
σi
σi
σi · BR f = σggF · BRWW ∗ ××= σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ) ×
×
. (6)
σggF
BRWW ∗σggF
ΓWW ∗The ratio of branching ratios in the above equation is substituted by the equivalent ratio of partial decay
widths. The ratios extracted from the measured yields are independent of theoretical predictions on the
inclusive cross sections and partial decay widths (and thus branching ratios). Furthermore, many experimental systematic uncertainties cancel in the ratios. The residual theoretical uncertainties are related tothe modelling of the Higgs boson production and decay, which impacts the signal acceptance calculations.
The gg → H → WW ∗ process is chosen as the reference because it has both the smallest statistical andoverall uncertainties, as shown in Fig. 2.
√
The s = 7 and 8 TeV data are fitted with σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ), σi /σggF and Γ f /ΓWW ∗ as parametersof interest and the results are listed in Table 7, together with the SM predictions [32]. The results after
normalising to their SM values are illustrated in Fig. 6. The results of σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ) and σi /σggF√√from the combined analysis of the s = 7 and 8 TeV data are shown for s = 8 TeV, assuming the SMvalues for σi (7 TeV)/σi (8 TeV). The WH and ZH production processes are treated independently in the
fit to allow for direct comparisons with theoretical predictions. The searches for H → µµ and H → Zγ
decays are included in the fit, but the current datasets do not result in sensitive measurements for thesetwo decays. Therefore only 95% CL upper limits are derived, namely 0.006 for Γµµ /ΓWW ∗ and 0.078
for ΓZγ /ΓWW ∗ . The p-value of the compatibility between the data and the SM predictions is found to be
80%.
The results exhibit a few interesting features that are worth mentioning. As a multiplicative factor common to all rates in this parameterisation, σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ) is pulled up in the fit to accommodate theobserved large global signal-strength value (Section 4.1). The best-fit value of σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ) is
+0.29
approximately 15% above the SM prediction, to be compared to the significantly lower value of 0.98 −0.26,∗
found from the stand-alone measurement from the H → WW decay (see Fig. 1). Moreover, there are by
construction large anti-correlations between σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ), σi /σggF and Γ f /ΓWW ∗ .
Table 8 shows the observed and expected significances in units of standard deviations of the VBF, WH,
ZH and ttH production processes. Listed under V H are the combined significances of WH and ZH
production, assuming the SM value for their relative cross sections. The significance is calculated froma likelihood scan, where the contributions from other processes are fixed at their best-fit values. As the
gg → H → WW ∗ process is chosen as the reference, the significances are calculated using the observable
σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ) for the ggF process and the cross-section ratios σi /σggF for all other processes. The
cross-section ratios are independent of the Higgs boson decay branching ratios and have the advantage ofthe cancellation of many experimental uncertainties. The result provides an unequivocal confirmation of
the gluon fusion production of the Higgs boson with its significance exceeding well above five standard

24

Table 7: Best-fit values of σ(gg → √H → WW ∗ ), σi /σggF and Γ f /ΓWW ∗ for a Higgs boson with mH√= 125.36 GeVfrom the combined analysis of the s = 7 and 8 TeV data. The cross-section ratios are given for s = 8 TeV assuming the SM values for σi (7 TeV)/σi (8 TeV). Shown in square brackets are uncertainty components: statistical(first), systematic (second) and signal theoretical (third) uncertainties. The SM predictions [32] are shown in thelast column.

Parameter

Best-fit valuehSM prediction

σ(gg → H → WW ∗ ) (pb)4.86 +0.95−0.90

σVBF /σggF

0.081 +0.035−0.026h+0.031 +0.016 +0.008−0.024 −0.010 −0.005

i

0.082 ± 0.009

σWH /σggF

0.053 +0.037−0.026h+0.032 +0.018 +0.008−0.023 −0.012 −0.004

i

0.036 ± 0.004

σZH /σggF

0.013 +0.030−0.014h+0.021 +0.020 +0.005−0.013 −0.005 −0.002

i

σttH /σggF

0.012 +0.007−0.005hΓγγ /ΓWW ∗0.010 +0.003−0.003

ΓZZ ∗ /ΓWW ∗+0.76 +0.52 +0.26−0.74 −0.48 −0.18

i4.22 ± 0.47

0.021 ± 0.002+0.005 +0.004 +0.0014−0.004 −0.003 −0.0005

i

0.007 ± 0.001

h+0.003 +0.002 +0.0006−0.002 −0.001 −0.0004

i

0.01036 ± 0.00011

0.15 +0.05
−0.04

h

Γττ /ΓWW ∗0.34 +0.14
−0.11

h

+0.046 +0.022 +0.008−0.036 −0.013 −0.005
i+0.112 +0.084 +0.032−0.090 −0.053 −0.017

Γbb /ΓWW ∗1.53 +1.64
−0.94

h

i

+1.17 +1.11 +0.30−0.69 −0.63 −0.12

0.124 ± < 0.001
0.285 ± 0.006

i

2.60 ± 0.12

Table 8: The observed and expected significances in units of standard deviations for different Higgs boson production processes except ggF production which is well established (see text). The significances of V H production are
obtained by combining the WH and ZH processes, assuming the SM value for their relative cross sections. All
significances are calculated under the asymptotic approximation [112].

Process
Observed
Expected

VBF
4.3
3.8

ttH
2.5
1.5

25

WH
2.1
2.0

ZH
0.9
2.1

VH
2.6
3.1

√ = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb

ATLAS√ = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

Observed: 68% CLσ(Observed: 95% CL−1−1

SM prediction→ H → WW ∗ )σ VBF/σF

σ WH /σF

σZH /σF

σ H /σFΓγγ/Γ WW ∗
Γ ZZ ∗/Γ WW ∗Γττ/Γ WW ∗
Γbb/Γ WW ∗−1 −0.5mH = 125.36 GeV
00.5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Value normalised to SM prediction

Figure 6: The gg → H → WW ∗ cross section, ratios of cross sections√and of partial decay widths relative to their
SM values at mH = 125.36 GeV from the combined analyses of the s = 7 and 8 TeV data. The inner and outererror bars on the measurements are 68% CL and 95% CL intervals. The SM predictions are shown as the verticalline at unity with grey bands representing theoretical uncertainties on the ratios of inclusive cross sections and ofpartial decay widths.

deviations. Furthermore, the result also offers strong evidence, at 4.3 standard deviations, of vector-boson
fusion production and supports the SM assumptions of production in association with vector bosons or apair of top quarks.
An alternative parameterisation normalising the ratios of cross sections and of branching ratios to their
SM values is presented in Appendix A.

26

5. Coupling-strength fitsf

In the previous section signal-strength parameter µi for a given Higgs boson production or decay mode
is discussed. For a measurement of Higgs boson coupling strengths, production and decay modes cannot
be treated independently, as each observed process involves at least two Higgs boson coupling strengths.
Scenarios with a consistent treatment of coupling strengths in production and decay modes are studied inthis section. All uncertainties on the best-fit values shown take into account both the experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties. For selected benchmark models a breakdown of parameter uncertainties
in statistical uncertainties and in experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties is presented.

5.1. Framework for coupling-strength measurements
Following the leading-order (LO) tree-level-motivated framework and benchmark models recommended
in Ref. [32], measurements of Higgs boson coupling-strength scale factors κ j are implemented for the
combination of all analyses and channels summarised in Table 3.
5.1.1. Structure and assumptions of the framework for benchmark models
The framework is based on the assumption that the signals observed in the different channels originate
from a single narrow resonance with a mass near 125.36 GeV. The case of several, possibly overlapping,resonances in this mass region is not considered. Unless otherwise noted, the Higgs boson production
and decay kinematics are assumed to be compatible with those expected for a SM Higgs boson, similar
to what was assumed for the signal-strength measurements of Section 4.
The width of the assumed Higgs boson near 125.36 GeV is neglected in the Higgs boson propagator, i.e.
the zero-width approximation is used. In this approximation, the cross section σ(i → H → f ) for on-shellmeasurements can always be decomposed as follows:σ(i → H → f ) =σi (κ j ) · Γf (κ j )ΓH (κ j )(7)

where σi is the Higgs boson production cross section through the initial state i , Γf its the partial decay
width into the final state f and ΓH the total width of the Higgs boson. The index j runs over all Higgs
boson couplings. The components of σi , Γf , and ΓH of Eq. (7) are expressed in scale factors κ j of the
Higgs boson coupling strengths to other particles j that are motivated by the leading-order processes that
contribute to production or decay, and are detailed in Section 5.1.2. All scale factors are defined suchthat a value of κ j = 1 corresponds to the best available SM prediction, including higher-order QCD and
EW corrections. This higher-order accuracy is generally lost for κ j , 1, nevertheless higher-order QCD
corrections approximately factorise with respect to coupling rescaling and are accounted for wherever
possible.
Modifications of the coupling scale factors change the Higgs boson width ΓH (κ j ) by a factor κ2H (κ j ) withrespect to the SM Higgs boson ΓSMH ,ΓH (κ j ) = κ2H (κ j ) · ΓSM
H ,27

where κ2H (κ j ) is the sum of the scale factors κ2j weighted by the corresponding SM branching ratios. The
total width of the Higgs boson increases beyond modifications of κ j if invisible or undetected Higgs boson
decays5 occur that are not present in the SM. Including a Higgs boson branching fraction BRi.,u. to such
invisible or undetected decays, the full expression for the assumed Higgs boson width becomesΓH (κ j , BRi.,u. ) =κ2H (κ j )ΓSM .
(1 − BRi.,u. ) H(8)

As BRi.,u. scales all observed cross-sections of on-shell Higgs boson production σ(i → H → f ), someassumption about invisible decays must be made to be able to interpret these measurements in terms ofabsolute coupling-strength scale factors κ j . The signal-strength measurements of off-shell Higgs boson
production [21], on the other hand, is assumed to only depend on the coupling-strength scale factors andnot on the total width [103, 104], i.e.
2
σoff (i → H ∗ → f ) ∼ κi,off· κ2f,off(9)where the additional assumption of non-running coupling-strength scale factors, κ j,off = κ j,on allows ΓH to
be constrained using using Eq. (8), from a simultaneous measurement of on-shell and off-shell measurements. While this assumption of non-running coupling-strength scale factors cannot hold universally for
ggF and VBF production without violating unitarity, it is assumed to hold in the region of phase space ofthe off-shell H ∗ → WW and H ∗ → ZZ measurements described in Section 2.9 which is relatively close to
the on-shell regime [116]. Alternatively, ratios of coupling-strength scale factors can be measured without
assumptions on the Higgs boson total width, as the identical contributions of ΓH to each coupling strength
cancel in any ratio of these.
Finally, only modifications of coupling strengths, i.e. of absolute values of coupling strengths, are taken
into account, while the tensor structure of the couplings is assumed to be the same as in the SM. Thismeans in particular that the observed state is assumed to be a CP-even scalar as in the SM. This assumption
was tested by both the ATLAS [24] and CMS [115] Collaborations.
5.1.2. Characterisation of the input measurements in terms of coupling strengths
The combined input channels described in Table 3 probe eight different production processes: σ(ggF),
σ(VBF), σ(WH), σ(qq̄ → ZH), σ(gg → ZH), σ(bbH), σ(ttH), and σ(tH) whose SM cross sections arelisted in Table 1.6 Table 9 summarises the Higgs boson coupling-strength characteristics of all production
processes and lists the rate scaling behaviour in terms of Higgs boson coupling-strength scale factors.
The ggF production process (Fig. 7a) involves a loop process at lowest order, with contributions fromt- and b-quark loops and a small interference between them. The VBF production (Fig. 7b) processprobes a combination of κW and κZ coupling-strength scale factors, with a negligible amount ( 0.1%)
of interference between these tree-level contributions.
The qq̄ → WH and qq̄ → ZH processes (Fig. 8a) each probe a single coupling strength, with scale
factors κW and κZ , respectively. The gluon-initiated associated production of a Higgs boson with a Z
boson, σ(gg → ZH), is characterised by gluon-fusion-style production involving t, b-quark loops where
5Invisible final states can be directly searched for through the ETmiss signature [28]. An example of an undetected mode would
be a decay mode to multiple light jets, which presently cannot be distinguished from multijet backgrounds.
6
The ZH production cross section quoted in Table 1 comprises both the qq̄ → ZH and gg → ZH processes.

28

q

q

g

W/Z
t/b

H

H

W/Z
g

q̄ ′

(a)

q̄ ′

(b)

Figure 7: Feynman diagrams of Higgs boson production via (a) the ggF and (b) VBF production processes.
q̄

H

g

H

g

t/b

H

t/b
Z

W/Z

g

q

W/Z

(a)

Z

(b)

g

Z

(c)

Figure 8: Feynman diagrams of Higgs boson production via (a) the qq̄ → V H and (b,c) gg → ZH production
processes.

the Z boson is always radiated from the fermion loop and the Higgs boson is either radiated directlyfrom the fermion loop (Fig. 8b), or is radiated from the outgoing Z boson (Fig. 8c). The cross section of
gg → ZH production is sensitive to the relative sign between κt and κZ due to interference between thesecontributions. This separate treatment of gg → ZH production is not present in the framework describedin Ref. [32].
The ttH production process (Fig. 9a) directly probes the Higgs boson coupling strength to top quarks,
parameterised in the framework with the scale factor κt . Tree-level tH production, comprising the processes qg → tHbq0 (Fig. 9b, 9c) and gb → WtH (Fig. 9d, 9e), is included as background to events in allreconstructed ttH categories, and has for SM Higgs boson coupling strengths a large destructive interference [69] between contributions where the Higgs boson is radiated from the W boson and from the top
quark. The SM cross section for tH production is consequently small, about 14% of the ttH cross section.
However, for negative κt the interference becomes constructive and, following Table 9, the cross section
increases by a factor of 6 (13) for | κt | = | κW | = 1 for the gb → WtH (qg → tHbq0 ) process, making thetH process sensitive to the relative sign of the W and top-quark coupling strength, despite its small SM
cross section. The modelling of tH production is not present in the framework described in Ref. [32].
The bbH (Fig. 9a) production process directly probes the Higgs boson coupling strength to b-quarks, withscale factor κb . Simulation studies using bbH samples produced in the four-flavour scheme [82, 96] haveshown that the ggF samples are a good approximation for bbH production for the most important analysis
categories, therefore bbH production is always modelled using simulated ggF events (see Section 2.10).
The combined input channels probe seven Higgs boson decay modes. Five of these decay modes, H →WW ∗ , H → ZZ ∗ , H → bb̄, H → ττ, and H → µµ each probe a single coupling-strength scale factor toeither a gauge boson (Fig. 10a) or to a fermion (Fig. 10b). The remaining two decay modes, H → γγ and
H → Zγ are characterised by the interference between W boson or top-quark loop diagrams (Fig. 11).

29

t/b

g

q′

q

q′

q

H

H

t

t

H

g

g

t̄/b̄

g

b̄

b̄

(b)

(a)

(c)

g

g

t

W

H

H

W

b

t

b

(d)

(e)

Figure 9: Feynman diagrams of Higgs boson production via (a) the ttH (bbH), (b,c) tHq0 b and (d,e) WtH processes.
W, Zb, τ − , µ−HHb̄, τ + , µ+

W, Z

(b)

(a)

Figure 10: Feynman diagrams of Higgs boson decays (a) to W and Z bosons and (b) to fermions.

These modes probe the W and t coupling strengths as well as their relative sign through interference
effects.
γ/Z

γ/Z
t̄/b̄

γ/Z
W±

W−
t/b

H

W±

H

H

W+

t/b

W±
γ

γ

(a)

(b)

γ

(c)

Figure 11: Feynman diagrams of Higgs boson decays to a pair of photons, or to a photon and a Z boson.

For completeness it should be noted also that the ggF, tH and gg → ZH cross sections expressed in Higgs
boson coupling strengths depend on the kinematic selection criteria used. The b–t interference expression
quoted in Table 9 for ggF is valid for the inclusive cross section, but in events with additional jets the
top-quark loop dominates, and the observed interference is somewhat smaller. For gg → ZH production
the effect of phase-space dependence was estimated for H → bb̄ decays with a variant of the coupling30

model that introduces separate coupling-dependent cross-section expressions for each of the Z bosonpT bins of the H → bb̄ analysis. The effect on coupling strength measurements of approximating the
gg → ZH production cross section with an inclusive expression instead of using the set of pT -dependent
expressions was determined to be negligible at the current experimental precision, with the largest effectbeing a ∼ 0.1σ reduction of the expected sensitivity in the determination of the relative sign of the W/Z
couplings. Neither this phase-space dependence, nor that of ggF are considered in this paper. For thetH process on the other hand, which features a comparatively large W–t interference term, the effect ofphase-space dependence is taken into account, even though Table 9 only lists the inclusive expression.
5.1.3. Effective coupling-strength scale factors
In some of the fits, effective scale factors κg , κγ and κZγ are introduced to describe the processes gg → H,
H → γγ and H → Zγ, which are loop-induced in the SM, as shown in Figures 7a and 11, respectively.
In other fits they are treated as a function of the more fundamental coupling-strength scale factors κt , κb ,
κW , and similarly for all other particles that contribute to these SM loop processes. In these cases, theloop contributions are expressed in terms of the fundamental coupling strengths, including all interference
effects, as listed for the SM in Table 9. The loop process gg → ZH is never treated as an effective scale
factor, as unlike in the other loop processes, a ggHZ contact interaction from new physics would likely
show a kinematic structure very different from the SM gg → ZH process [58] assumed in the current
study and is expected to be suppressed. What then remains of BSM effects on the gg → ZH process are
modifications of the Higgs boson couplings to the top quark (Fig. 8b) and the Z boson (Fig. 8c), which
are taken into account within the limitation of the framework by the coupling-strength scale factors κt andκZ .
5.1.4. Strategies for measurements of absolute coupling strengths
As all observed Higgs boson cross sections in the LO framework are inversely proportional to the Higgs
boson width (Eq. (7)), which is not experimentally constrained to a meaningful precision at the LHC,
only ratios of coupling strengths can be measured at the LHC without assumptions about the Higgs boson
width. To make measurements of absolute coupling strengths, an assumption about the Higgs boson
width must be introduced.
The simplest assumption is that there are no invisible or undetected Higgs boson decays, i.e. BRi.,u. = 0 is
assumed in Eq. (8). An alternative, less strong assumption, is that κW ≤ 1 and κZ ≤ 1[32]. This assumption
is theoretically motivated by the premise that the Higgs boson should solve the unitarity problem in vectorboson scattering and also holds in a wide class of BSM models. In particular, it is valid in any modelwith an arbitrary number of Higgs doublets, with and without additional Higgs singlets. The assumption
is also justified in certain classes of composite Higgs boson models. A second alternative is to assume
that the coupling strengths in off-shell Higgs boson production are identical to those for on-shell Higgs
boson production. Under the assumption that the off-shell signal strength and coupling-strength scale
factors are independent of the energy scale of Higgs boson production, the total Higgs boson decay width
can be determined from the ratio of off-shell to on-shell signal strengths [21]. The constraint BRi.,u. ≥ 0,
motivated by the basic assumption that the total width of the Higgs boson must be greater or equal to
the sum of the measured partial widths, always introduces a lower bound on the Higgs boson width. The
difference in effect of these assumptions is therefore mostly in the resulting upper limit on the Higgs boson

31

Table 9: Overview of Higgs boson production cross sections σi , the Higgs boson partial decay widths Γ f andthe Higgs boson total width ΓH . For each production or decay mode the scaling of the corresponding rate interms of Higgs boson coupling-strength scale factors is given. For processes where multiple amplitudes contribute,the rate may depend on multiple Higgs boson coupling-strength scale factors, and interference terms may giverise to scalar product terms κi κ j that allow the relative sign of the coupling-strength scale factors κi and κ j to be
determined. Expressions originate from Ref. [32], except for σ(gg → ZH) (fromRef. [58]) and σ(gb → WtH) and√s=
8
TeV and mH = 125.36 GeV andσ(qb → tHq0 ) (calculated
using
Ref.
[82]).
The
expressions
are
given
for
√
are similar for s = 7 TeV. Interference contributions with negligible magnitudes have been omitted in this table.

Production
σ(ggF)σ(VBF)σ(WH)
σ(qq̄ → ZH)
σ(gg → ZH)
σ(bbH)
σ(ttH)σ(gb → WtH)
σ(qb → tHq0 )Partial decay width
Γbb̄
ΓWW
ΓZZ
Γττ
Γµµ
Γγγ
ΓZγ
Total decay width
ΓH

Loops
X
X
-

Interference
b–t
Z–t
W–t
W–t

X
X

W–t
W–t

X

W −t
b−t

Expression in fundamental coupling-strength scale factors
κg2 ∼ 1.06 · κt2 + 0.01 · κb2 − 0.07 · κt κb
2 + 0.26 · κ2
∼ 0.74 · κW
Z
2
∼ κW
∼ κZ2
2
κggZ H ∼ 2.27 · κZ2 + 0.37 · κt2 − 1.64 · κZ κt
∼ κb2
∼ κt2
2 − 2.41 · κ κ∼ 1.84 · κt2 + 1.57 · κWt W
2
2
∼ 3.4 · κt + 3.56 · κW − 5.96 · κt κW
∼
∼
∼
∼
∼
2
κγ ∼
2 ∼
κZγ

κb2
2
κW
κZ2
κτ2
κµ2
2 + 0.07 · κ2 − 0.66 · κ κ
1.59 · κWW tt
2 + 0.00035 · κ2 − 0.12 · κ κ
1.12 · κW
W t
t

κ2H ∼

2 + 0.09 · κ2 +0.57 · κb2 + 0.22 · κWg
0.06 · κτ2 + 0.03 · κZ2 + 0.03 · κc2 +2 + 0.00022 · κ2
0.0023 · κγ2 + 0.0016 · κZγµ

width. The assumptions made for the various measurements are summarised in Table 10 and discussed in
the next sections together with the results.

5.2. Fermion versus vector (gauge) coupling strengths
Benchmark coupling models in this section allow for different Higgs boson coupling strengths to fermionsand bosons, reflecting the different structure of the interactions of the SM Higgs sector with gauge bosons
and fermions. It is always assumed that only SM particles contribute to the gg → H, H→ γγ, H → Zγ
and gg → ZH vertex loops, and modifications of the coupling-strength scale factors for fermions andvector bosons are propagated through the loop calculations. Models with and without assumptions about
the total width are presented.

32

33

48.1

48.2

49

51

50.2

50.3

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.5.1

5.5.2

5.5.3

43.3
46
47

5.2.3
5.3.1
5.3.2

5.4.1

43.2

Corresponding
table in Ref.[32]
43.1

5.2.2

Section inthis paper
5.2.1

Generic models with andwithout assumptions onvertex loops and ΓH

Vertex loops +H →invisible/undetecteddecays
=1
−
−

−
−
−
−

=1
≤1
−
−
≤1
−
−
−

κW , κZ , κt , κb , κτ , κµ
κW , κZ , κt , κb ,
κτ , κµ , κg , κγ ,
κZγ , BRi.,u.
λW Z , λtg , λbZλτZ , λgZ , λγZ ,λ(Zγ)Z , κgZ

−

=1

−

−
−
−

X

−
−

−

−

−

−
−
−

X

−
−

−

−

−

X
X
κon = κoff

· (1 − BRi.,u. )2 · λ2κgZγZ

κ2H (κb ,κt ,κτ ,κµ ,κW ,κZ )κg2 ·κγ2κ2H (κb ,κt ,κτ ,κµ ,κW ,κZ )κg2 (κb ,κt )·κγ2 (κb ,κt ,κτ ,κµ ,κW )κ2F ·κγ (κF ,κV )2· (1 − BRi.,u. )κ2H (κF ,κV ,κg ,κγ )X
κon = κoffX

κg2 · κγ2 /κ2H (κg , κγ ) · (1 − BRi.,u. )κg2 · κγ2 /κ2H (κg , κγ )κ2F ·κγ (κF ,κV )2· (1 − BRi.,u. )κ2H (κF ,κV )222
κVV · λFV · κγ (λFV , λFV , λFV , 1)
2 · κ2 (λ , 1) · κ2 (λ , 1, λ , λ )
κuu
du Vu
g du
γ du
2 · κ2 (1, 1, λ , λ )
κqq
`q Vq
γ

κ2F · κγ2 (κF , κV )/κ2H (κF , κV )Example: gg → H→ γγX

XFunctional assumptions
κF
κg
κγ
κH
X
X
X
X
−
X
X
X
−
X
X
κon = κoffXXX−
κu , κdXX−κ` , κq
X
X
−

=1

κV
X
≤1
−
X
X
X

λFV , κVV
λdu , λVu , κuu
λ`q , λVq , κqq
κg , κγ ,κZγ
κg , κγ ,κZγ , BRi.,u.
κF , κV , κg , κγ ,
κZγ , BRi.,u.

κF , κV , BRi.,u.

Couplings to fermions andbosonsUp-/down-type fermions
Leptons/quarks

Parameters ofinterest
κV , κ F

Probedcouplings

Table 10: Summary of benchmark coupling models considered in this paper, where λi j ≡ κi /κ j , κii ≡ κi κi /κH , and the functional dependence assumptions are:
κV = κW = κZ , κF = κt = κb = κτ = κµ (and similarly for the other fermions), κg = κg (κb , κt ), κγ = κγ (κb , κt , κτ , κW ), and κH = κH (κi ). The tick marks indicate
which assumptions are made in each case. The last column shows, as an example, the relative coupling strengths involved in the gg → H→ γγ process.

5.2.1. Assuming only SM contributions to the total width
In the first benchmark model no undetected or invisible Higgs boson decays are assumed to exist, i.e.
BRi.,u. = 0. The universal coupling-strength scale factors κF for all fermions and κV for all vector bosons
are defined in this model as:
κV= κW = κZκF= κt = κb = κτ = κg = κµ .

As only SM particles are assumed to contribute to the gg → H loop in this benchmark model, the gluon
fusion process depends directly on the fermion scale factor κ2F . Only the relative sign between κF and κVis physical and hence in the following only κV > 0 is considered, without loss of generality. Sensitivity tothis relative sign is gained from the negative interference between the loop contributions of the W bosonand the t-quark in H→ γγ and H → Zγ decays and in gg → ZH production, as well as from the tH
processes (see the corresponding expressions in Table 9).
Figure 12 shows the results of the fits for this benchmark model. Figure 12a illustrates how the decays
H→ γγ, H → ZZ ∗ , H → WW ∗ , H → ττ and H → bb̄ contribute to the combined measurement. The
slight asymmetry in κF for H → WW ∗ and H → bb̄ decays is introduced by the small contributions of thetH and gg → ZH production processes that contribute to these decay modes, and which are sensitive tothe sign of κF due to interference effects. The strong constraint on κF from H → WW ∗ decays is related
to the 3.2σ observation of the VBF production process in this channel[11]. Outside the range shown in
Fig. 12a there are two additional minima for H→ γγ. The long tails in the H → bb̄ contour towards highvalues of |κV | are the result of an asymptotically disappearing sensitivity of the observed signal strength in
the bb̄ final states to κV at large values of κV . The combined measurement without overlays is also shownin Figure 12b.
Figures 12a and 12b only show the SM-like minimum with a positive relative sign, as the local minimum
with negative relative sign is disfavoured at the 4.0σ level, which can been seen in the wider scan ofκF , where κV is profiled, shown in Fig. 12c. The likelihood as a function of κV , profiling κF , is given in
Fig. 12d. Around κV = 0.8 the sign of the chosen profiled solution for κF changes, causing a kink in thelikelihood. The profile likelihood curves restricting κF to either positive or negative values are also shownin Fig. 12d as thin curves, and illustrate that this sign change in the unrestricted profile likelihood is theorigin of the kink.
Both κF and κV are measured to be compatible with their SM expectation and the two-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 41%. The best-fit values and uncertainties are:
h
i
+0.03
+0.04
κV = 1.09 ± 0.07 +0.05(stat.)(syst.)(theo.)
−0.03
−0.03
−0.05
h
i
+0.12
+0.10
κF = 1.11 ± 0.16 −0.11 (stat.) −0.09 (syst.) +0.06(theo.).
−0.05

5.2.2. Allowing for invisible or undetected Higgs boson decays in the total width
The second benchmark model of this section allows for the presence of invisible or undetected Higgs
boson decays by introducing BRi.,u. as a free parameter in the expression of Eq. (8) for the Higgs boson

34

κF

4
3
2

ATLAS
s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1
mH = 125.36 GeV

10−1
H → γγH → ZZ*
H → WW*
H → ττ
H → bb
Combined

−2
−3
−4

SM

68% CLBest fit

95% CL

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8
κV

1.8

ATLAS
s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

30

V

Standard Model
Best fit
68% CL
95% CLATLAS
25-2 ln Λ(κ )

2

F

2.2

-2 ln Λ(κ )κF(a)[κV,κF]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

30
ATLAS
25

1.6

20

20

1.4

15

15

10

10

5

5

s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

SM expected (Observed(

κF > 0κF > 0[κV,κF]κF < 0 )κF < 0 )

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.9

mH = 125.36 GeV

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

0
−2

−1.5

−1 −0.5

0

κV

(b)

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

κF

(c)

1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5κV(d)Figure 12: Results of fits for the two-parameter benchmark model defined in Section 5.2.1 that probes different
coupling-strength scale factors for fermions and vector bosons, assuming only SM contributions to the total width:(a) results of the two-dimensional fit to κF and κV , including 68% and 95% CL contours; overlaying the 68%
CL contours derived from the individual channels and their combination; (b) the same measurement, without theoverlays of the individual channels; (c) the profile likelihood ratio as a function of the coupling-strength scale
factors κF (κV is profiled) and (d) as a function of κV (κF is profiled). The dashed curves in (c) and (d) show theSM expectations. In (d) the sign of the chosen profiled solution for κF changes at κV ≈ 0.8 , causing a kink in thelikelihood. The profile likelihood curves restricting κF to be either positive or negative are also shown to illustratethat this sign change in the unrestricted profile likelihood is the origin of the kink. The red (green) horizontal
line indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for theparameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2 distribution for the test statistic.

35

total width. The free parameters of this model thus are κF , κV and BRi.,u. . Loop processes are still assumed
to have only SM content.
With the introduction of BRi.,u. as a free parameter, the assumed Higgs boson width has no intrinsic upperbound and an additional constraint must be imposed on the model that infers an upper bound on ΓH . Bothchoices of constraints on the total width discussed in Section 5.1 are studied: κV < 1 and κon = κoff .

ATLAS
68% CL:
95% CL:κV < 1−1√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb−1√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

κon = κoff BRi.,u. = 0(95% CL) κ V > 0.93
κV = 1.13+0.23−0.07

κV = 1.09 ± 0 .07

κ F = 1.05 ± 0.16
κF = 1 .1 7+0.25−0.16
κF = 1 .1 1 ± 0.16

(95% CL) BR i.,u. < 0.13
(95% CL) BR i.,u. < 0.52
ΓH
SM
ΓH

+0.2 7= 1.07 −0.2 1
ΓH= 1.38+1.35
−0.31
ΓSM
H
ΓH
+0.30
SM = 1.23−0.26
ΓHmH = 125.36 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Parameter value
Figure 13: Results of fits for benchmark models that probe for potential extra contributions to the total width, but
do not allow contributions from non-SM particles in the H→ γγ, gg → H and H → Zγ loops, with free gauge andfermion coupling-strength scale factors κV , κF . The estimated values of each parameter under the constraint κV < 1,
κon = κoff or BRi.,u. = 0 are shown with markers in the shape of box, circle, or diamond, respectively. The inner andouter bars correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals. The confidence intervals of BRi.,u. and, in the benchmark
model with the constraint κV < 1, also κV , are estimated with respect to their physical bounds, as described in the
text. The numerical values of the fit under the constraint κV < 1 are shown on the left. Values for the two alternative
constraints are also shown (in a reduced font size due to space constraints).

Figure 13 shows the results of fits for this benchmark scenario. For comparison the results of the benchmark model of Section 5.2.1 are included, corresponding to the condition BRi.,u. = 0. The couplingstrength scale factors κF and κV are measured to be compatible with the SM values and a limit is set on
the fraction of Higgs boson decays to invisible or undetected final states. The three-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 99% (29%), when applying the κV < 1 (off-shell)

36

constraint, respectively. When imposing the physical constraint BRi.,u. ≥ 0, the 95% CL upper limit isBRi.,u. < 0.13 (0.52), when applying the constraint κV < 1 (κon = κoff ). The corresponding expected limiton BRi.,u. , under the hypothesis of the SM, is 0.24 (0.71).
Also shown in Fig. 13 is the uncertainty on the total width that the model variants allow, expressed as
the ratio ΓH /ΓSM
H . These estimates for the width are obtained from alternative parameterisations of thesebenchmark models, where the coupling-strength scale factor κF is replaced by the expression that resultsfrom solving Eq. (8) for κF , introducing ΓH /ΓSM
H as a parameter of the model. Figure 13 shows that theupper bound on the Higgs boson width from the assumption κoff = κon is substantially weaker than thebound from the assumption κV < 1. These choices of constraints on the Higgs boson width complement
each other in terms of explored parameter space: the present limit of µoff < 5.1 [21] in the combined
off-shell measurement in the H → WW ∗ and H → ZZ ∗ channels effectively constrains κV to be greaterthan one in the combined fit when exploiting the assumption κon = κoff .
The parameterisation of the off-shell signal strength µoff in terms of couplings implicitly requires that
µoff ≥ 0 (see Ref. [21] for details). This boundary condition causes the distribution of the test statistic
to deviate from its asymptotic form for low values of σoff , with deviations in p-values of up to 10%
for σoff ≈ 2.5, which corresponds to the value of σoff at the upper boundary of the 68% asymptotic
confidence interval of ΓH /ΓSM
H . The upper bound of the 68% CL interval for the scenario κoff = κonshown in Fig. 13 should therefore be considered to be only approximate. Since the lower bound onΓH /ΓSMH is always dominated by the constraint BRi.,u. ≥ 0, it is not affected by this deviation from theasymptotic behaviour.
5.2.3. No assumption about the total width
In the last benchmark model of this section no assumption about the total width is made. In this model
only ratios of coupling-strength scale factors are measured, choosing as free parametersλFV= κF /κVκVV= κV · κV /κH ,where λFV is the ratio of the fermion and vector boson coupling-strength scale factors, κVV is an overall
scale that includes the total width and applies to all rates, and κH is defined in Table 9.
Figure 14 shows the results of this fit. Both ratio parameters are found to be consistent with the SM
expectation and the two-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 41%.
The best-fit values and uncertainties, when profiling the other parameter, are:
h
i
+0.08
+0.04
+0.15 +0.11
λFV = 1.02−0.13−0.11 (stat.) −0.07 (syst.) −0.03 (theo.)
h
i
+0.11
+0.06
+0.04
κVV = 1.07+0.14−0.13 −0.11 (stat.) −0.06 (syst.) −0.04 (theo.) .
Similar to the model described in Section 5.2.1, Fig. 14a shows the determination of the sign of λFV
disfavouring λFV = −1 at approximately 4.0σ, while Fig. 14b shows the two-dimensional likelihood
contour. The estimates of the two parameters are anticorrelated because only their product appears in themodel.

37

ATLAS
25

λFVFV-2 ln Λ(λ )30[κVV,λFV]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

1.8Standard Model
Best fit
68% CL
95% CL

1.6

20

1.4

15

1.2

10

1

5

0.8

ATLAS
s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

mH = 125.36 GeV

0−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0.6
0.7

2.5

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5
κVV

λFV

(a)

(b)

Figure 14: Results of fits for the two-parameter benchmark model defined in Section 5.2.3 that probes different
coupling-strength scale factors for fermions and vector bosons without assumptions about the total width: (a) profile likelihood ratio as a function of the coupling-strength scale factor ratio λFV (κVV is profiled). The dashed curveshows the SM expectation. The red (green) horizontal line indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2 distribution
for the test statistic. (b) Results of the two-dimensional fit to κVV and λFV , including 68% and 95% CL contours.

5.3. Probing relations within the fermion coupling sector
The previous sections assumed universal coupling-strength scale factors for all fermions, while many extensions of the SM predict deviations from universality within the fermion sector [32]. In this section,
benchmark models are explored that probe the relations between the up- and down-type fermions andbetween the lepton and quark sectors, using the information in the currently accessible channels, in particular in H → bb̄, H → ττ and H → µµ decays and ttH production. The models considered assume that
only SM particles contribute to the gg → H, H→ γγ, H → Zγ and gg → ZH vertex loops, and modifications of the coupling-strength scale factors are propagated through the loop calculations. As only ratiosof coupling-strength scale factors are explored, no assumptions on the total width are made.
5.3.1. Probing the up- and down-type fermion symmetry
Many extensions of the SM contain different coupling strengths of the Higgs boson to up-type and downtype fermions. This is for instance the case for certain Two-Higgs-Doublet Models (2HDM) [117–119].
In this benchmark model the ratio λdu of down- and up-type fermions coupling-strength scale factors isprobed, while vector boson coupling-strength scale factors are assumed to be unified and equal to κV . The
indices u, d stand for all up- and down-type fermions, respectively. The free parameters are:λdu = κd /κu
λVu = κV /κuκuu = κu · κu /κH .
The up-type quark coupling-strength scale factor is mostly indirectly constrained through the gg → H
production channel, from the Higgs boson to top-quark coupling strength, with an additional weak direct38

constraint from the qq̄/gg → tt¯H production channel, while the down-type coupling strength is constrained through the H → bb̄, H → ττ and H → µµ decays as well as weakly through the bb̄ → H
production mode and the b-quark loop in the gg → H production mode.
The fit results for the parameters of interest in this benchmark model, when profiling the other parameters,
are:
λdu

∈ [−1.08, −0.81] ∪ [0.75, 1.04] (68% CL)

λVu = 0.92+0.18−0.16

κuu = 1.25+0.33−0.33 .

Near the SM prediction of λdu = 1, the best-fit value is λdu = 0.90+0.14. All parameters are measured−0.15
to be consistent with their SM expectation and the three-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis
with the best-fit point is 51%.
The likelihood curves corresponding to these measurements are shown in Figure 15. The likelihood
curve of Figure 15a is nearly symmetric around λdu = 0 as the model is almost insensitive to the relative
sign of κu and κd . The interference of contributions from the b-quark and t-quark loops in the gg → H
production induces an observed asymmetry of about 0.6σ (no significant asymmetry is expected with thepresent sensitivity). The profile likelihood ratio value at λdu = 0 provides 4.5σ evidence of the couplingof the Higgs boson to down-type fermions, mostly coming from the H → ττ measurement and to alesser extent from the H → bb̄ measurement. Vanishing coupling strengths of the Higgs boson to up-type
fermions (κuu = 0) and vector bosons (λVu = 0) are excluded at a level of > 5σ.
5.3.2. Probing the quark and lepton symmetry
Extensions of the SM can also contain different coupling strengths of the Higgs boson to leptons andquarks, notably some variants of Two-Higgs-Doublet Models. In this benchmark model the ratio λ`qof coupling-strength scale factors to leptons and quarks is probed, while vector boson coupling-strengthscale factors are assumed to be unified and equal to κV . The indices `, q stand for all leptons and quarks,
respectively. The free parameters are:λ`q = κ` /κq
λVq = κV /κqκqq = κq · κq /κH .
The lepton coupling strength is constrained through the H → ττ and H → µµ decays. The fit results forthe parameters of interest of this benchmark model, when profiling the other parameters, are:λ`q

∈ [−1.34, −0.94] ∪ [0.94, 1.34] (68% CL)

λVq = 1.03+0.18−0.15

κqq = 1.03+0.24−0.20 .

Near the SM prediction of λ`q = 1, the best-fit value is λ`q = 1.12+0.22−0.18 . All parameters are measured to beconsistent with their SM expectation and the three-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis withthe best-fit point is 53%.

39

Vu

-2 ln Λ(λ )du-2 ln Λ(λ )ATLAS[κuu,λVu,λdu]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

25
20

30
ATLAS
25

30

[κuu,λVu,λdu]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

15
10
5

20

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

15

0

0.5

1

1.5

-2 ln Λ(κuu)

5

2.5
λVu

(b)

10

2

30
ATLAS
25

[κuu,λVu,λdu]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

20

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
λdu

15
10
5

(a)
0

0.5

1

1.5

(c)

2

2.5

3
κuu

Figure 15: Results of fits for the benchmark model described in Section 5.3.1 that probes the ratio of scale factors
between down- and up-type fermions: profile likelihood ratios as functions of the coupling-strength scale factor
ratios (a) λdu (λVu and κuu are profiled), (b) λVu (λdu and κuu are profiled), and (c) the overall scale factor κuu (λduand λVu are profiled). The dashed curves show the SM expectations. The red (green) horizontal line indicates thevalue on the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for the parameter of interest,
assuming the asymptotic χ2 distribution for the test statistic.

Figure 16 shows the likelihood curves corresponding to the fit results for this benchmark. Similar to themodel of Section 5.3.1, the likelihood curve is nearly symmetric around λ`q = 0. A vanishing couplingstrength of the Higgs boson to leptons, i.e. λ`q = 0, is excluded at the ∼ 4.4σ level due to the H → ττmeasurement. The profile likelihood ratio values at κqq = 0 and λVq = 0 provide strong confirmation of
Higgs boson couplings to quarks and vector bosons with both significances of > 5σ.

5.4. Probing beyond the SM contributions in loops and decays
In this section, contributions from new particles either in loops or in new final states are probed. For
the H→ γγ, H → Zγ and gg → H vertices, effective scale factors κγ , κZγ and κg are introduced thatallow for extra contributions from new particles. These effective scale factors are defined to be positive as
there is by construction no sensitivity to the sign of these coupling strengths. The potential new particles
contributing to these vertex loops may or may not contribute to the total width of the observed statethrough direct invisible or undetected decays. In the latter case the total width is parameterised in termsof the additional branching ratio BRi.,u. into invisible or undetected particles.

40

Vq

-2 ln Λ(λ )lq-2 ln Λ(λ )

ATLAS
25

[κqq,λVq,λlq]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

20

30
ATLAS
25

30

[κqq,λVq,λlq]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

15
10
5

20

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

15

0

0.5

1

1.5

-2 ln Λ(κqq)

5

2.5
λVq

(b)

10

2

30
ATLAS
25

[κqq,λVq,λlq]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

20

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
λlq

15
10
5

(a)
0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3
κqq

(c)

Figure 16: Results of fits for the benchmark model described in Section 5.3.2 that probes the symmetry between
quarks and leptons: profile likelihood ratios as functions of the coupling-strength scale factor ratios (a) λ`q (λVq andκqq are profiled), (b) λVq (λ`q and κqq are profiled), and (c) the overall scale factor κqq (λ`q and λVq are profiled). The
dashed curves show the SM expectations. The red (green) horizontal line indicates the value of the profile likelihood
ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2
distribution for the test statistic.

5.4.1. Probing BSM contributions in loop vertices only
In the first benchmark model of this section, BSM contributions can modify the loop coupling strengths
from their SM prediction, but it is assumed that there are no extra contributions to the total width caused
by non-SM particles. Furthermore, all coupling-strength scale factors of known SM particles are assumed
to be as predicted by the SM, i.e. κW = κZ = κt = κb = κτ = κµ = 1. The free parameters are thus κg , κγand κZγ .
Figure 17a shows the results of fits for this benchmark scenario and the best-fit values and uncertainties,
when profiling the other parameters. The effective coupling-strength scale factors κg and κγ are measured
to be consistent with the SM expectation, whereas a limit is set on the effective coupling-strength scale
factor κZγ . Figure 17b shows the two-dimensional likelihood contour for κg vs. κγ , where κZγ is profiled.
The three-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 69%.
5.4.2. Probing BSM contributions in loop vertices and to the total width
The second benchmark model of this section removes the assumption of no invisible or undetected Higgs
boson decays, introducing BRi.,u. as additional model parameter. The free parameters of this benchmark
model are thus κg , κγ , κZγ and BRi.,u. . The coupling-strength scale factors of known SM particles are

41

ATLAS√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb

68% CL:
95% CL:√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb−1−1

BR i., u. = 0

κγ = 1.00 ± 0.12
κ = 1.12 ± 0.12
(95%CL) κZγ < 3.3m H = 125.36 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Parameter value

κg

(a)

1.8
1.7
1.6

Standard Model
Best fit
68% CL
95% CLATLAS
s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.6

mH = 125.36 GeV

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4
κγ

(b)

Figure 17: Results of fits for the benchmark model that probes for contributions from non-SM particles in the
H→ γγ, H → Zγ and gg → H loops, assuming no extra contributions to the total width: (a) overview of fitted
parameters, where the inner and outer bars correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals, and (b) results of thetwo-dimensional fit to κγ and κg , including 68% and 95% CL contours (κZγ is profiled).

42

ATLAS√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb

68% C L:√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb−1−1

95% C L:κγ = 1.00 ± 0.12
κ = 1.12+0.14−0.11(95%CL) κZ γ < 3.3(95%CL) BRi.,u. < 0.27
ΓH
ΓHSM

.13
= 1.03 +0−0 .03mH = 125.36 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 2.5
3
Parameter valuei.,u.

-2 ln Λ(BR )

(a)
30
ATLAS
25

s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

[κγ ,κg,κZγ ,BRi.,u.]SM expected
Observed

20
15
10
5
0
−0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

BRi.,u.

(b)

Figure 18: Results of fits for benchmark models that probe for contributions from non-SM particles in the H→ γγ,
H → Zγ and gg → H loops, while allowing for potential extra contributions to the total width: (a) overview offitted parameters. The inner and outer bars correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals. The confidence intervals
for BRi.,u. are estimated with respect to the physical bounds as described in the text. (b) Profile likelihood ratio
as a function of the branching fraction BRi.,u. to invisible or undetected decay modes (κγ , κg and κZγ are profiled).
The red (green) horizontal line indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%)
confidence interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2 distribution for the test statistic.

43

still assumed to be at their SM values of 1. Due to this assumption, the parameterisation of Higgs boson
channels that do not involve a loop process, e.g. VBF production of H → WW ∗ and associated productionof H → bb̄, depends only on BRi.,u. in this model, and not on κg , κγ or κZγ , and can hence constrain
BRi.,u. from the data. Thus no additional constraints, beyond those introduced in the benchmark model of
Section 5.2.2, are necessary in this model.
The results of fits to this benchmark model are shown in Fig. 18, along with the uncertainty on the total
width that this model allows, obtained in the same fashion as for the previous benchmark models. The
effective coupling-strength scale factors κg and κγ are measured to be consistent with the SM expectation,
whereas limits are set on the effective coupling-strength scale factor κZγ and the branching fraction BRi.,u. .
By using the physical constraint BRi.,u. > 0, the observed 95% CL upper limit is BRi.,u. < 0.27 comparedwith the expected limit of BRi.,u. < 0.37 under the SM hypothesis. The four-dimensional compatibility of
the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 74%. The best-fit values of the model parameters of interestand their uncertainties, when profiling the other parameters, are

h
i
+0.10
+0.05
+0.07
κg = 1.12+0.14−0.11 −0.08 (stat.) −0.05 (syst.) −0.07 (theo.)
h
i
+0.05
+0.04
κγ = 1.00 ± 0.12 +0.11−0.11 (stat.) −0.05 (syst.) −0.03 (theo.)

In a variant of the fit where no limits are imposed on BRi.,u. its best-fit value is

i
h
+0.17
+0.11
+0.06
BRi.,u. = −0.15+0.21−0.22 −0.17 (stat.) −0.11 (syst.) −0.07 (theo.) ,corresponding to the likelihood curve shown in Fig. 18b. Without the condition BRi.,u. ≥ 0, the bestfit value of BRi.,u. assumes a small (unphysical) negative value that is consistent with zero within theuncertainty.
As the choice of free parameters in this model gives extra degrees of freedom to ggF production and
H→ γγ and H → Zγ decays, the most precise measurements based on ggF production or H→ γγ decays(see Fig. 2) do not give a sizeable contribution to the determination of BRi.,u. . Instead BRi.,u. is mostly
constrained by channels sensitive to VBF and V H production, as the tree-level couplings involved in theseproduction modes are fixed to their SM values within this model. The upward uncertainty on ΓH /ΓSM
H isnotably increased with respect to that of the model in Section 5.4.1 due to the removing the constraint on
BRi.,u. , whereas the downward uncertainty is identical due to the condition that BRi.,u. ≥ 0.
5.4.3. Probing BSM contributions in loop vertices and to the total width allowing modified
couplings to SM particles
The last benchmark model of this section removes the assumption of SM couplings of the Higgs boson for
non-loop vertices used so far in this section, re-introducing the coupling-strength scale factors κF and κV
defined in Section 5.2.1 to allow deviations of the coupling strength of the Higgs boson to fermions andgauge bosons, respectively. As the expression for κH is no longer strongly constrained due to the newly
introduced degrees of freedom, the upper limit on ΓH is no longer bounded, and an additional constraint

44

on the total Higgs boson width must be introduced. Similar to the model of Section 5.2.2 the two choicesof the constraints on the total width discussed in Section 5.1 are studied: κV < 1 and κon = κoff . The freeparameters of this model are κF , κV , κg , κγ , κZγ and BRi.,u. .
Figure 19 shows the best-fit values and their uncertainties. The coupling-strength scale factors κg , κγ ,κV and κF are measured to be consistent with their SM expectation, while limits are set on the couplingstrength scale factor κZγ and the branching fraction BRi.,u. to invisible or undetected decays. By using thephysical constraint BRi.,u. ≥ 0, the 95% CL upper limit is BRi.,u. < 0.27 (0.54) when applying the constraint κV < 1 (κon = κoff ). The expected limit in case of the SM hypothesis is BRi.,u. < 0.39 (0.72). The
six-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 96% (64%) when applying
the κV < 1 (κon = κoff ) constraint, respectively. The uncertainty on ΓH /ΓSM
H is significantly increased compared with models in Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 due to the further relaxed coupling constraints, in particularboth the 68% and 95% CL intervals of ΓH /ΓSM
H extend below 1.

5.5. Generic models
In the benchmark models studied in Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, specific aspects of the Higgs sector are
tested by combining coupling-strength scale factors into a minimum number of parameters under certain
assumptions, thereby maximising the sensitivity to the scenarios under study. In generic models the scale
factors for the coupling strengths to W, Z, t, b, τ and µ are treated independently, while for the loop
vertices and the total width ΓH , either the SM particle content is assumed (Section 5.5.1) or no suchassumption is made (Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3).
5.5.1. Generic model 1: no new particles in loops and in decays
In the first generic benchmark model all coupling-strength scale factors to SM particles, relevant to themeasured modes, are fitted independently. The free parameters are: κW , κZ , κt , κb , κτ , and κµ . It is
assumed that only SM particles contribute to Higgs boson vertices involving loops, and modificationsof the coupling-strength scale factors for fermions and vector bosons are propagated through the loop
calculations. No invisible or undetected Higgs boson decays are assumed to exist. Only the W couplingstrength scale factor is assumed to be positive without loss of generality: due to interference terms, the fit
is sensitive to the relative sign of the W and t couplings (through the tH, H→ γγ, H → Zγ processes) andthe relative sign of the Z and t coupling (through the gg → ZH process), providing indirect sensitivity
to the relative sign of the W and Z coupling. Furthermore, the model has some sensitivity to the relative
sign of the t and b coupling (through the ggF process).
Figure 20 summarises the results of the fits for this benchmark scenario. All measured coupling-strengthscale factors in this generic model are found to be compatible with their SM expectation, and the sixdimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 57%. Illustrative likelihoodsof the measurements summarised in Fig. 20 are shown in Fig. 21. As shown in Figs. 21a and 21b, thenegative solution of κt is strongly disfavoured at 3.1σ (2.9σ expected), while the negative minimum of κb
is slightly disfavoured at 0.5σ (no sensitivity expected).
For the measurements in this generic model, it should be noted that the low fitted value of κb causes a
reduction of the total width ΓH by about 30% compared to the SM expectation (see Table 9), which inturn induces a reduction of all other κ-values by about 20%.

45

ATLAS
68% CL:
95% CL:√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

κV < 1−1−1

κon = κoff

(95%C L) κ V > 0.85
+0.25

κV = 1.08−0.11

κF = 1.01 ± 0.19
κF = 1.08+0.29−0.20κγ = 1.00 ± 0.13
+0.29

κγ = 1.05−0.15+0.21

κ = 1.13 −0.18+0.31

κ = 1.18 −0.16(95%CL) κ Zγ < 3.3(95%CL) κZγ < 4.3(95%CL) BR i.,u. < 0.27
(95%CL) BR i.,u. < 0.54
ΓH
ΓHS M

= 1.05 +0.34−0.25
ΓH= 1.23+1.45
−0.34
ΓHS M

mH = 125.36 GeV

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 2.5
3 3.5
Parameter value

Figure 19: Results of fits for benchmark models that probe for contributions from non-SM particles in the H→ γγ,
gg → H and H → Zγ loops, with free gauge and fermion coupling-strength scale factors κV , κF , while allowing
for potential extra contributions to the total width. The estimated values of each parameter under the constraint
κV < 1 or κon = κoff are shown with markers in the shape of a box or a circle, respectively. The inner and outer bars
correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals. The confidence intervals of BRi.,u. and, in the benchmark model withthe constraint κV < 1, also κV , are estimated with respect to their physical constraints as described in the text. The
numerical values of the fit under the constraint κV < 1 are shown on the left. Values for the alternative κon = κoff
constraint are also shown (in a reduced font size due to space constraints).

46

ATLAS
68% CL:
95% CL:√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb−1
√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb−1

BR i.,u. = 0

κW = 0.91 ± 0.14
κZ ∈ [−1.06, −0.82]∪[0.84, 1.12]
κ = 0.94 ± 0.21
κb ∈ [−0.90, −0.33]∪[0.28, 0.96]κτ ∈ [−1.22, −0.80]∪[0.80, 1.22](95%CL) |κμ| < 2.28
mH = 125.36 GeV−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Parameter value
Figure 20: Overview of best-fit values of parameters with 68% and 95% CL intervals for generic model 1 (see text).
In this model only SM particles are considered in loops and no invisible or undetected Higgs boson decays areallowed. The sign of κW is assumed to be positive, as indicated by the hatched area, without loss of generality. The
inner and outer bars correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals.

Figure 22 shows the results of the fit for generic model 1 as reduced coupling-strength scale factors
rgV,i√ mV,iyV,i = κV,i
= κV,i(10)2v
v
for weak bosons with a mass mV , where gV,i is the absolute Higgs boson coupling strength, v is the vacuum
expectation value of the Higgs field and
gF,i
mF,i
yF,i = κF,i √ = κF,i
v
2

(11)

for fermions as a function of the particle mass mF , assuming a SM Higgs boson with a mass of 125.36 GeV.
For the b-quark mass in Fig. 22 the MS running mass evaluated at a scale of 125.36 GeV is assumed.

47

b

ATLAS
25

-2 ln Λ(κ )t-2 ln Λ(κ )30[κW,κZ,κb,κt,κτ,κµ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

30
ATLAS
25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0
−3

2.5

[κW,κZ,κb,κt,κτ,κµ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

κt

κb

(b)

30

Z

ATLAS
25

-2 ln Λ(κ )W-2 ln Λ(κ )(a)[κW,κZ,κb,κt,κτ,κµ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

30
ATLAS
25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0
0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.81

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8[κW,κZ,κb,κt,κτ,κµ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

2
κW

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
κZ

(c)

(d)

Figure 21: Results of fits for generic model 1 (see text): profile likelihood ratios as functions of the couplingstrength scale factors (a) κt , (b) κb , (c) κW , and (d) κZ . For each measurement, the other coupling-strength scale
factors are profiled. The kinks in the curves of (a) and (c) are caused by transitions in solutions chosen by the profile
likelihood for the relative sign between profiled couplings. The dashed curves show the SM expectations. The red(green) horizontal line indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence
interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2 distribution for the test statistic.

5.5.2. Generic model 2: allow new particles in loops and in decay
In the second generic benchmark model the six free parameters from the first generic model are retained
but the assumptions on the absence of BSM contributions in loops and to the total width are dropped.
Effective coupling-strength scale factors for loop vertices are introduced, and optionally a branching ratio
BRi.,u. to new non-SM decays that might yield invisible or undetected final states is introduced, resulting
in a total of 9 (10) free parameters. In the variant where BRi.,u. is not fixed to zero, either the constraint
κV < 1 is imposed, or the constraint on the total width from off-shell measurements is included.
Figure 23 summarises the results of the fits for this benchmark scenario. The numerical results are shownin Table 11. As an illustration of contributions from different sources, the uncertainty components areshown for the case of BRi.,u. = 0. All fundamental coupling-strength scale factors, as well as the loopcoupling scale factors κg and κγ are measured to be compatible with their SM expectation under all
explored assumptions, while limits are set on the loop-coupling scale factor κZγ and the fraction of Higgs

48

mκ V vVm
κ F vF or

1

ATLAS

t

s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1

Z-1

s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

W
Observed
SM Expected

-1

10

10-2
τ
b
10-3

µ

10-1

102
10
Particle mass [GeV]1

Figure 22: Fit results for the reduced coupling-strength scale factors yV,i =gqgκV,i 2vV,i =√mκV,i vV,i for weak bosonsmand yF,i = κF,i √F,i2 = κF,i vF,i for fermions as a function of the particle mass, assuming a SM Higgs boson with a massof 125.36 GeV. The dashed line indicates the predicted mass dependence for the SM Higgs boson.

boson decays to invisible or undetected decays. When imposing the physical constraint BRi.,u. ≥ 0 in
the inference on BRi.,u. , the 95% CL upper limit is BRi.,u. < 0.49 (0.68) under the constraint κV < 1(κon = κoff ) on the Higgs boson total width. The nine-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis
with the best-fit point is 73% when BRi.,u. is fixed to zero. The compatibilities for the fits with theconditions κV < 1 and κon = κoff imposed are 80% and 57%, respectively.
Similar to the results of the benchmark model in Section 5.2.2 the upper bound of the 68% CL interval forthe scenario κon = κoff should be considered to be only approximate due to deviations of the test-statistic
distribution from its asymptotic form. The deviation of the asymptotic distribution was shown to be
negligible for off-shell signal strengths corresponding to the upper end of the 95% asymptotic confidence
interval (Table 11).
Also shown in Fig 23 are the resulting ranges of the total width of the Higgs boson, expressed as the ratioΓH /ΓSMH . These estimates are obtained from alternative parameterisations of these benchmark models,
where the effective coupling-strength scale factor κg is replaced by the expression that results from solving
Eq. (8) for κg , introducing ΓH /ΓSM
H as a parameter of the model. The figure shows that the upper boundon the Higgs boson width from the assumption κon = κoff is substantially weaker than the bound from theassumption κV < 1. These results on ΓH /ΓSM
H represent the most model-independent measurements of the
Higgs boson total width presented in this paper.
Figure 24 shows profile likelihood ratios as a function of selected coupling-strength scale factors. In

49√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb

ATLAS
68% C L:
95% C L:√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb

κV < 1

κon = κ off−1−1

BR i.,u. = 0

κW
κZ
κ
κb
κτ
κμ

κγ
κ
κZγ
BR i.,u.
ΓHΓHSMm H = 125.36 GeV

−2

−1

0

1

2
3
Parameter value

Figure 23: Results of fits for generic model 2 (see text): the estimated values of each parameter under the constraint
κV < 1, κon = κoff or BRi.,u. = 0 are shown with markers in the shape of a box, a circle, or a diamond, respectively.
The hatched area indicates regions that are outside the defined parameter boundaries. The inner and outer bars
correspond to 68% CL and 95% CL intervals. The confidence intervals of BRi.,u. and, in the benchmark model withthe constraints κW < 1 and |κZ | < 1, also κW and κZ , are estimated with respect to their physical bounds as describedin the text. Numerical results are shown in Table 11.

50

51
1.02±0.37
0.19

0.90+0.16−0.14
0.92+0.23
−0.16

=

=

<
<
=

κγ

κg

κZγ
BRi.,u.
ΓH /ΓSMH
4.03 (95% CL)
0.68 (95% CL)+1.57
0.74−0.21

0.93±0.36
0.17

0.99+0.22−0.18
2.3 (95% CL)

=
<

|κτ |
|κµ |

3.15 (95% CL)
0.49 (95% CL)
0.64+0.40−0.25

2.8 (95% CL)

0.62 ± 0.28

κt=

= 1.28+0.32−0.35= 0.96±0.35
0.16= 1.05±0.38
0.17= 1.35+0.61−0.39
0.64+0.34−0.28
1.03+0.21−0.40

κon = κoff|κb |> 0.71 (95% CL)> 0.64 (95% CL)κWκZκV < 1

Parameteri3.18 (95% CL)+0.31
0.64−0.25

0.92 ± 0.17

0.90 ± 0.15

1.00 ± 0.20
2.3 (95% CL)

0.62+0.31−0.27∈ [−1.12, −1.00] ∪ [0.93, 1.60]∈ [−1.08, −0.84] ∪ [0.86, 1.14]

+0.19
+0.24
+0.06
−0.21 (stat.) −0.15 (syst.) −0.05 (theo.)

h

i

i

+0.13
+0.04
(stat.) +0.07−0.07 (syst.) −0.03 (theo.)i
h−0.12
+0.14
+0.10
+0.07
−0.12 (stat.) −0.09 (syst.) −0.05 (theo.)h

Uncertainty breakdown
+0.11
+0.03
(stat.) +0.07−0.08 (syst.) −0.03 (theo.)i
h−0.11+0.13+0.03(stat.) +0.05−0.07 (syst.) −0.02 (theo.)i
h−0.13+0.20+0.12(stat.) +0.22−0.26 (syst.) −0.06 (theo.)i
h−0.22+0.21+0.06(stat.) +0.17−0.18 (syst.) −0.03 (theo.)i
h−0.20
+0.15
+0.12
+0.06
−0.14 (stat.) −0.11 (syst.) −0.04 (theo.)= 0.92+0.14
−0.15

h

Fitted value

BRi.,u. = 0

Table 11: Numerical results of the fits to generic model 2 : effective coupling-strength scale factors for loop processes allowing non-SM contributions withvarious assumptions on the total Higgs boson width. These results are illustrated in Fig. 23. The confidence interval of BRi.,u. in the benchmark model with theconstraints κW < 1 and |κZ | < 1, and the confidence intervals κW and κZ , are estimated with respect to their physical bounds, as described in the text. Shownin square brackets are uncertainty components from different sources for the case of BRi.,u. = 0 as an illustration. For κZ and κt , the uncertainty breakdowns
are provided for the preferred positive solutions. Also shown is the uncertainty on the total width that the model variants allow, expressed as the ratio ΓH /ΓSMH .
These estimates for the width are obtained from alternative parameterisations of these benchmark models where the effective coupling-strength scale factor κgis replaced by the expression that results from solving Eq. (8) for κg , introducing ΓH /ΓSM
H as a parameter of the model.

b

ATLAS
25

-2 ln Λ(κ )t-2 ln Λ(κ )30[κW,κZ,κt,κb,κτ,κµ ,κγ ,κg,κZγ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

30
ATLAS
25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0
−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

0
−4

3

[κW,κZ,κt,κb,κτ,κµ ,κγ ,κg,κZγ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

4

κt

κb

(b)

30

Z

ATLAS
25

-2 ln Λ(κ )W-2 ln Λ(κ )(a)[κW,κZ,κt,κb,κτ,κµ ,κγ ,κg,κZγ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

30
ATLAS
25

20

20

15

15

10

10

5

5

0
0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.81

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8[κW,κZ,κt,κb,κτ,κµ ,κγ ,κg,κZγ ]SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

2
κW

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
κZ

(c)

(d)

Figure 24: Results of fits for generic model 2 (see text): profile likelihood ratios as functions of the couplingstrength scale factors (a) κt , (b) κb , (c) κW , and (d) κZ . For each measurement, the other coupling-strength scale
factors are profiled. The red (green) horizontal line indicates the value of the profile likelihood ratio corresponding
to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2 distribution for thetest statistic.

Fig. 24a, the negative minimum of κt is shown to be disfavoured at 1.0σ. The minimum corresponding to
the positive solution is found at κt = 1.28+0.32. The sensitivity to disfavour the negative solution of κt is−0.35
reduced with respect to generic model 1 as the interference in loop couplings can no longer be exploited
because effective coupling-strength scale factors were introduced. The observed residual sensitivity to thesign of κt is exclusively due to the tree-level interference effect of the tH background in the ttH channel.
The power of individual loop processes to measure the magnitude of κt and resolve the sign of κt relative
to κW is illustrated in more detail in Fig. 25. The blue curve shows the profile likelihood ratio as afunction of κt for a model with the least sensitivity to the sign of κt : all loop processes are described witheffective coupling parameters, including the gg → ZH loop process. Subsequently the red, green andorange curves represent the profile likelihood ratios for models that incrementally include informationfrom loop processes by resolving the gg → ZH, ggF and H → γγ, Zγ loop processes into their expected
SM content. Here the red curve corresponds to the configuration of generic model 2, and the orange
curve corresponds to the configuration of generic model 1. As expected, resolving gg → ZH processadds little information on κt . Additionally resolving the ggF loop process into its SM content greatly52t-2 ln Λ(κ )improves the precision on κt (green curve), but reduces the sensitivity to the relative sign of κt and κW .
This reduction happens because on one hand the ggF process yields no new information on this relative
sign, as it is dominated by t–b interference, and on the other hand because it decreases the observed
magnitude of κt to a more SM-compatible level, thereby reducing the sensitivity of the tH process to therelative sign. Further resolving the H→ γγ and H → Zγ loop processes, which are dominated by W–tinterference, greatly improves the measurement of the relative sign of κW and κt (orange curve), but does
not significantly contribute to the precision of the magnitude of κt .
20
18
16

ATLAS
s = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

Obs. tH

Exp. tH

Obs. tH,κggZH

Exp. tH,κggZH,κg,κγ ,κZγ

Obs. tH,κggZH,κg
Obs. tH,κggZH,κg,κγ ,κZγ

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

−2

−1.5

−1

−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2
κt

Figure 25: Profile likelihood ratio as a function of κt for models with and without resolved loop processes: shown
are measurements of κt with no loop processes resolved (blue), only gg → ZH resolved (red, generic model 2),
gg → H additionally resolved (green), and H→ γγ and H → Zγ additionally resolved (orange, generic model1). The dashed blue and orange curves correspond to the expected sensitivity for the no-loop and all-loop models.
All profile likelihood curves are drawn for the full range of κt , however some curves are partially obscured whenoverlapping with another nearly identical curve. The red (green) horizontal line indicates the value of the profile
likelihood ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for the parameter of interest, assuming theasymptotic χ2 distribution for the test statistic.

5.5.3. Generic model 3: allow new particles in loops, no assumptions on the total width
In the final benchmark model of this section, the six absolute coupling-strength scale factors and threeeffective loop-coupling scale factors of generic model 2 are expressed as ratios of scale factors that canbe measured independent of any assumptions on the Higgs boson total width. The free parameters arechosen as:

53

κgZ

= κg · κZ /κH

λZg = κZ /κgλτZ= κτ /κZ

λW Z= κW /κZλµZ= κµ /κZλtg = κt /κgλγZ= κγ /κZλ(Zγ)Z= κZγ /κZ .

λbZ= κb /κZ

Figure 26 shows the full set of results obtained from the fit to this benchmark model. The fitted values andtheir uncertainties are also shown in Table 12. As the loop-induced processes are expressed by effective
coupling-strength scale factors, there is little sensitivity to the relative sign of coupling-strength scale
factors due to tH and gg → ZH processes only. Hence only positive values for all κ-factors except κt
are shown without loss of generality. The parameter κgZ , λZg , λW Z , λtg , λbZ , λτZ and λγZ are all measured
to be compatible with their SM expectation, while limits are set on the parameters λµZ and λ(Zγ)Z . The
nine-dimensional compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point is 73%.
Table 12: Numerical results of the fits for generic model 3: measurements of ratios of coupling-strength scale factors
in which assumptions on the Higgs boson total width cancel. These results are also shown in Fig. 26. Shown insquare brackets are uncertainty components from different sources. For λW Z and λtg , the uncertainty breakdowns
are provided for the preferred positive solutions.

Parameter

Measurement

Uncertainty breakdown+0.14 (stat.) +0.04 (syst.) +0.08 (theo.)
−0.04
−0.06
h−0.14i+0.21 (stat.) +0.12 (syst.) +0.08 (theo.)
−0.10
−0.06
h−0.20i+0.13 (stat.) +0.05 (syst.) +0.02 (theo.)
−0.11
−0.02
−0.05
h
i
+0.26 (stat.) +0.20 (syst.) +0.14 (theo.)
−0.24
−0.08
−0.25
h
i
+0.21 (stat.) +0.14 (syst.) +0.05 (theo.)
−0.19
−0.03
−0.16
h
i
+0.19
+0.11 (syst.) +0.06 (theo.)(stat.)
−0.09
−0.04
−0.16

h

κgZ

=

1.18 ± 0.16

λZg=

1.09+0.26
−0.22

λW Z
λtg

∈
∈

[−1.04, −0.81] ∪ [0.80, 1.06][−1.70, −1.07] ∪ [1.03, 1.73]

λbZ=

0.60 ± 0.27λτZ
|λµZ |λγZ|λ(Zγ)Z |=<=<0.99+0.23−0.19
2.3 (95% CL)
0.90 ± 0.15
3.2 (95% CL)hi+0.15 (stat.) +0.05 (syst.) +0.03 (theo.)
−0.13
−0.04
−0.03

i

The parameter λW Z = κW /κZ in this model is of particular interest: identical coupling-strength scale
factors for the W and Z bosons are required within tight bounds by the SU(2) custodial symmetry and theρ parameter measurements at LEP and at the Tevatron [120]. This custodial constraint is directly probed in
the Higgs sector through the parameter λW Z . The measured ratio λW Z is in part directly constrained by the
decays in the H→ WW ∗ → `ν`ν and H→ ZZ ∗ → 4` channels and the WH and ZH production processes. It
is also indirectly constrained by the VBF production process, which in the SM is 74% W fusion-mediatedand 26% Z fusion-mediated (see Table 9). Figure 27a shows the profile likelihood ratio as a function of thecoupling-strength scale factor ratio λW Z . Due to the interference terms, the fit is sensitive to the relative
sign of the W and t coupling (tH) and the relative sign of the Z and t coupling (gg → ZH), providing
indirect sensitivity to the sign of λW Z . The negative solution is disfavoured at 0.5σ (0.3σ expected). The

54

minimum corresponding to the positive solution is found at λW Z = 0.92+0.14−0.12 , in excellent agreement withthe prediction of SU(2) custodial symmetry.
Also shown in Figs. 27b, 27c are the ratios λγZ and λtg . The ratio λγZ is sensitive to new charged particles
contributing to the H→ γγ loop in comparison to H → ZZ ∗ decays. Similarly, the ratio λtg is sensitive
to new coloured particles contributing through the gg → H loop as compared to ttH. The minimum
corresponding to the positive solution is found at λtg = 1.38 ± 0.35. Both are observed to be compatible
with the SM expectation.
The fit in the third generic benchmark model uses only the basic assumptions, as stated at the beginning of
this section, and hence represents the most model-independent determination of coupling-strength scale
factors that is currently possible.

55

ATLAS√s = 7 TeV, 4.5 − 4.7 fb−1
√s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb−1

68% CL:
95% CL:κ Z = 1.18 ± 0.16
+0.26

λZ = 1.09 −0.22
λWZ ∈ [−1.04, −0.81]∪[0.80, 1.06]
λ ∈ [−1.70, −1.07]∪[1.03, 1.73]
λbZ = 0.60 ± 0.27
+0.23

λτZ = 0.99 −0.19(95%CL) λμZ < 2.3λγZ = 0.90 ± 0.15
(95%CL) λ(Zγ)Z < 3.2mH = 125.36 GeV

−2

−1

0

1
2
3
Parameter value

Figure 26: Results of fits for generic model 3 (see text): allowing deviations in vertex loop-coupling scale factors andin the total width. Overview of best-fit values of parameters, where the inner and outer bars correspond to 68% CL
and 95% CL intervals. The hatched areas indicate regions that are outside the defined parameter boundaries.

56

)
WZ

-2 ln Λ(λ

14

ATLAS

[κgZ,λtg,λbZ,λγ Z,λµ Z,λτZ,λWZ,λZg,λ(Zγ )Z]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

12
10
8
6
4
2

0
−2.5 −2 −1.5 −1 −0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5
λWZ

12

ATLAS

γZ

14

-2 ln Λ(λ )-2 ln Λ(λtg)(a)[κgZ,λtg,λbZ,λγ Z,λµ Z,λτZ,λWZ,λZg,λ(Zγ )Z]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

10

30
ATLAS
25

[κgZ,λtg,λbZ,λγ Z,λµ Z,λτZ,λWZ,λZg,λ(Zγ )Z]
SM expected
Observeds = 7 TeV, 4.5-4.7 fb-1
s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

20

8

15

6
10
4
5

2
0
−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

0
0

3

0.5

1

1.5

λtg

2

2.5

3
λγ Z

(b)

(c)

Figure 27: Results of fits for generic model 3 (see text): profile likelihood ratios as functions of the couplingstrength scale factor ratios (a) λW Z , (b) λtg and (c) λγZ . In all cases, the other parameters are profiled. The dashedcurves show the SM expectations. The red (green) horizontal line indicates the cutoff value of the profile likelihood
ratio corresponding to a 68% (95%) confidence interval for the parameter of interest, assuming the asymptotic χ2
distribution for the test statistic.

57

6. Conclusion
The Higgs boson production and decay properties are studied using proton–proton collision data collectedby the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider corresponding to integrated luminosities of up√√
to 4.7 fb−1 at s = 7 TeV and 20.3 fb−1 at s = 8 TeV. The study combines specific analyses of the
H → γγ, ZZ ∗ , WW ∗ , Zγ, bb̄, ττ and µµ decay channels, as well as searches for ttH production andmeasurements of off-shell Higgs boson production. It significantly extends a previous combination of
the H → γγ, ZZ ∗ and WW ∗ decays [23]. In particular, the addition of the fermionic decays of the Higgs
boson in the combinations allows for direct tests of the Yukawa interactions of the Higgs boson withfermions.
The measured Higgs boson signal yields are compared with the SM expectations at the fixed Higgs boson mass of mH = 125.36 GeV. The combined yield relative to its SM prediction is determined to be
1.18 ± 0.10 (stat.) ± 0.07 (syst.) +0.08−0.07 (theo.). The combined analysis provides unequivocal confirmationof gluon fusion production of the Higgs boson with a significance exceeding 5σ and strong evidence of
vector-boson fusion production with a significance of 4.3σ. Furthermore, it supports the SM predictionsof Higgs boson production in association with a vector boson or a pair of top quarks. Values for the total
cross sections can be obtained from the signal strength of each production process within the uncertainties related to the modelling of Higgs boson production and decay kinematics and assuming SM decay√+1.9
branching ratios. The total cross sections at s = 7 and 8 TeV are 22.1 +6.7
(stat.) +2.7
−2.3 (syst.) −1.4 (theo.) pb
−5.3
+1.2
and 27.7 ± 3.0 (stat.) +2.0
−1.7 (syst.) −0.9 (theo.) pb, respectively.
The observed Higgs boson production and decay rates are also interpreted in a leading-order couplingframework, exploring a wide range of benchmark coupling models both with and without assumptions
about the Higgs boson width and the SM particle content of loop processes. Higgs boson couplings to uptype fermions and vector bosons are found with both significances above 5σ and to down-type fermions
with a significance of 4.5σ, under the assumption of unified coupling scale factors, one for each type ofparticles. In a different model with separate unified coupling scale factors for leptons, quarks and vectorbosons, Higgs boson couplings to leptons are found with a significance of ∼ 4.4σ.
The Higgs boson coupling strengths to fermions and bosons are measured with a precision of ±16% and±7% respectively, when assuming the SM Higgs boson width, and are observed to be compatible with
the SM expectations. Coupling strengths of loop processes are measured with a precision of ±12% whenassuming the SM expectations for non-loop Higgs boson coupling strengths and the Higgs boson total
width, increasing to about ±20% when these assumptions are removed. No significant deviations fromthe SM expectations of Higgs boson coupling strengths in loop processes are observed.
Measurements of coupling strengths to µ, τ leptons, b, t quarks and W, Z bosons, or ratios of these coupling strengths are presented in the context of generic Higgs boson coupling models. They can constrain
the ratio of W and Z coupling strengths, a probe of custodial symmetry, with a precision of ±13%. For
benchmark models that measure absolute coupling strengths, a variety of physics-motivated constraints on
the Higgs boson total width have been explored. The measured Higgs boson coupling strengths and theirprecision are found to depend only weakly on the choice of these constraints. A third generic benchmark
model uses only the most basic assumptions and hence represents the most model-independent determination of the coupling strength scale factors that is currently possible. In this model ratios of couplings areconstrained with a precision of 15 – 40%.

58

The p-values expressing compatibility of the SM hypothesis with the best-fit point range between 29%
and 99% for all considered benchmark models. The observed data are thus very compatible with the SM
expectation under a wide range of assumptions.

Acknowledgements
We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from ourinstitutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently.
We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW
and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and
CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia;
MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany;
GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy;
MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW
and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa;
MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern andGeneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, UnitedStates of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, theCanada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada;
EPLANET, ERC, FP7, Horizon 2020 and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, European Union; Investissements d’Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Region Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG
and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF
and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; the Royal Society and Leverhulme
Trust, United Kingdom.
The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from
CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden),
CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain),
ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2 facilities worldwide.

59

References[1]

ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model
Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1,
arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex].

[2]

CMS Collaboration,
Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC,
Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex].

[3]

F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321.

[4]

P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132.

[5]

P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508.

[6]

G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble,
Global conservation laws and massless particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585.

[7]

P. W. Higgs, Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons,Phys. Rev. 145 (1966) 1156.

[8]

T. W. B. Kibble, Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554.

[9]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel
in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 112015, arXiv:1408.7084 [hep-ex].

[10]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in pp
collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 012006, arXiv:1408.5191 [hep-ex].

[11]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Observation and measurement of Higgs boson decays to WW∗ with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 012006, arXiv:1412.2641 [hep-ex].

[12]

ATLAS Collaboration, Study of (W/Z)H production and Higgs boson couplings using H → WW ∗decays with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 08 (2015) 137, arXiv:1506.06641 [hep-ex].

[13]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H → γγ and
H → ZZ ∗ → 4` channels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb−1 of pp collision data,
Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 052004, arXiv:1406.3827 [hep-ex].

[14]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector,
JHEP 1504 (2015) 117, arXiv:1501.04943 [hep-ex].

[15]

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the bb̄ decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson in associated(W/Z)H production with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 1501 (2015) 069,
arXiv:1409.6212 [hep-ex].

[16]

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for Higgs boson decays to a photon and a Z boson in pp√
collisions at s=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B732 (2014) 8,
arXiv:1402.3051 [hep-ex].

60

[17]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson decay to µ+ µ− with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Lett. B738 (2014) 68, arXiv:1406.7663 [hep-ex].

[18]

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson produced in association with√
top quarks and decaying into bb̄ in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 349, arXiv:1503.05066 [hep-ex].

[19]

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson with a top quark
pair in multilepton final states with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B749 (2015) 519–541,
arXiv:1506.05988 [hep-ex].

[20]

ATLAS Collaboration, Search for H → γγ produced in association with top quarks andconstraints on the Yukawa coupling between the top quark and the Higgs boson using data taken
at 7 TeV and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B740 (2015) 222,
arXiv:1409.3122 [hep-ex].

[21]

ATLAS Collaboration, Constraints on the off-shell Higgs boson signal strength in the high-mass
ZZ and WW final states with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 335,
arXiv:1503.01060 [hep-ex].

[22]

ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,
JINST 3 (2008) S08003.

[23]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in diboson final
states with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B726 (2013) 88,
arXiv:1307.1427 [hep-ex].

[24]

ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence for the spin-0 nature of the Higgs boson using ATLAS data,
Phys. Lett. B726 (2013) 120, arXiv:1307.1432 [hep-ex].

[25]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector,
Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 476, arXiv:1506.05669 [hep-ex].

[26]

CMS Collaboration,
Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings
with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV,
Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 212, arXiv:1412.8662 [hep-ex].

[27]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Search for Higgs and Z Boson Decays to J/ψ and Υ(nS ) with the ATLAS Detector,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 121801, arXiv:1501.03276 [hep-ex].

[28]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Search for Invisible Decays of a Higgs Boson Produced in Association with a Z Boson in ATLAS,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 201802, arXiv:1402.3244 [hep-ex].

[29]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson produced in association with a hadronically√decaying vector boson in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 337, arXiv:1504.04324 [hep-ex].

[30]

S. Dittmaier et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables (2011),
arXiv:1101.0593 [hep-ph].

61

[31]

S. Dittmaier et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Differential Distributions (2012),
arXiv:1201.3084 [hep-ph].

[32]

S Heinemeyer et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties (2013),
arXiv:1307.1347 [hep-ph].

[33]

A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P. Zerwas,
Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders: QCD corrections, Phys. Lett. B264 (1991) 440.

[34]

S. Dawson, Radiative corrections to Higgs boson production, Nucl. Phys. B359 (1991) 283.

[35]

M. Spira et al., Higgs boson production at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B453 (1995) 17,
arXiv:hep-ph/9504378 [hep-ph].

[36]

R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore,
Next-to-next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 201801, arXiv:hep-ph/0201206 [hep-ph].

[37]

C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov, Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,
Nucl. Phys. B646 (2002) 220–256, arXiv:hep-ph/0207004 [hep-ph].

[38]

V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. van Neerven, NNLO corrections to the total cross-section for
Higgs boson production in hadron hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B665 (2003) 325,
arXiv:hep-ph/0302135 [hep-ph].

[39]

U. Aglietti et al., Two loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays,
Phys. Lett. B595 (2004) 432, arXiv:hep-ph/0404071 [hep-ph].

[40]

G. Degrassi and F. Maltoni,
Two-loop electroweak corrections to Higgs production at hadron colliders,Phys. Lett. B600 (2004) 255, arXiv:hep-ph/0407249 [hep-ph].

[41]

S. Actis et al., NLO electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production at hadron colliders,Phys. Lett. B670 (2008) 12, arXiv:0809.1301 [hep-ph].

[42]

S. Catani et al., Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders,
JHEP 0307 (2003) 028, arXiv:hep-ph/0306211 [hep-ph].

[43]

C. Anastasiou, R. Boughezal and F. Petriello,
Mixed QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion,
JHEP 0904 (2009) 003, arXiv:0811.3458 [hep-ph].

[44]

D. de Florian and M. Grazzini,
Higgs production through gluon fusion: Updated cross sections at the Tevatron and the LHC,
Phys. Lett. B674 (2009) 291, arXiv:0901.2427 [hep-ph].

[45]

J. Baglio and A. Djouadi, Higgs production at the lHC, JHEP 1103 (2011) 055,
arXiv:1012.0530 [hep-ph].

[46]

C. Anastasiou et al., Inclusive Higgs boson cross-section for the LHC at 8 TeV,JHEP 1204 (2012) 004, arXiv:1202.3638 [hep-ph].

[47]

D. de Florian and M. Grazzini,√
Higgs production at the LHC: updated cross sections at s = 8 TeV,
Phys. Lett. B718 (2012) 117, arXiv:1206.4133 [hep-ph].

[48]

M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Strong and electroweak corrections to the productionof Higgs + 2-jets via weak interactions at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 161803,
arXiv:0707.0381 [hep-ph].

62

[49]

M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier,Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at the LHC,
Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 013002, arXiv:0710.4749 [hep-ph].

[50]

K. Arnold et al., VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons,Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1661, arXiv:0811.4559 [hep-ph].

[51]

P. Bolzoni et al., Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at NNLO in QCD,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 011801, arXiv:1003.4451 [hep-ph].

[52]

P. Bolzoni et al., Vector boson fusion at NNLO in QCD: SM Higgs and beyond,Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 035002, arXiv:1109.3717 [hep-ph].

[53]

T. Han and S. Willenbrock, QCD correction to the pp → WH and ZH total cross-sections,Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 167.

[54]

O. Brein, A. Djouadi and R. Harlander,
NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders,Phys. Lett. B579 (2004) 149, arXiv:hep-ph/0307206 [hep-ph].

[55]

M. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier and M. Krämer,Electroweak radiative corrections to associated WH and ZH production at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 073003, arXiv:hep-ph/0306234 [hep-ph].

[56]

A. Denner et al., Electroweak corrections to Higgs-strahlung off W/Z bosons at the Tevatron andthe LHC with HAWK, JHEP 1203 (2012) 075, arXiv:1112.5142 [hep-ph].

[57]

L. Altenkamp et al., Gluon-induced Higgs-strahlung at next-to-leading order QCD,JHEP 1302 (2013) 078, arXiv:1211.5015 [hep-ph].

[58]

C. Englert, M. McCullough and M. Spannowsky,
Gluon-initiated associated production boosts Higgs physics, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 013013,
arXiv:1310.4828 [hep-ph].

[59]

W. Beenakker et al., Higgs radiation off top quarks at the Tevatron and the LHC,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 201805, arXiv:hep-ph/0107081 [hep-ph].

[60]

W. Beenakker et al., NLO QCD corrections to tt¯H production in hadron collisions,
Nucl. Phys. B653 (2003) 151, arXiv:hep-ph/0211352 [hep-ph].

[61]

S. Dawson et al.,Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to pp → tt¯h at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 071503, arXiv:hep-ph/0211438 [hep-ph].

[62]

S. Dawson et al., Associated Higgs production with top quarks at the large hadron collider: NLO
QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 034022, arXiv:hep-ph/0305087 [hep-ph].

[63]

S. Dawson et al., Exclusive Higgs boson production with bottom quarks at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 074027, arXiv:hep-ph/0311067 [hep-ph].

[64]

S. Dittmaier, M. Krämer and M. Spira,Higgs radiation off bottom quarks at the Tevatron and the CERN LHC,
Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 074010, arXiv:hep-ph/0309204 [hep-ph].

[65]

S. Dawson et al., Higgs production in association with bottom quarks at hadron colliders,Mod. Phys. Lett. A21 (2006) 89, arXiv:hep-ph/0508293 [hep-ph].

63

[66]

R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore,
Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at next-to-next-to leading order,
Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 013001, arXiv:hep-ph/0304035 [hep-ph].

[67]

R. Harlander, M. Krämer and M. Schumacher, Bottom-quark associated Higgs-boson
production: Reconciling the four- and five-flavour scheme approach (2011),
arXiv:1112.3478 [hep-ph].

[68]

F. Maltoni et al., Associated production of Higgs and single top at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 094023, arXiv:hep-ph/0106293 [hep-ph].

[69]

M. Farina et al., Lifting degeneracies in Higgs couplings using single top production inassociation with a Higgs boson, JHEP 05 (2013) 022, arXiv:1211.3736 [hep-ph].

[70]

H.-L. Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 074024,
arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph].

[71]

J. Gao et al., CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD,
Phys. Rev. D89.3 (2014) 033009, arXiv:1302.6246 [hep-ph].

[72]

A. Martin et al., Parton distributions for the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C63 (2009) 189,
arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph].

[73]

R. D. Ball et al.,
Impact of heavy quark masses on parton distributions and LHC phenomenology,
Nucl. Phys. B849 (2011) 296, arXiv:1101.1300 [hep-ph].

[74]

R. D. Ball et al., Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties
at NNLO and at LO, Nucl. Phys. B855 (2012) 153, arXiv:1107.2652 [hep-ph].

[75]

R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867 (2013) 244,
arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph].

[76]

M. Botje et al., The PDF4LHC working group interim recommendations (2011),
arXiv:1101.0538 [hep-ph].

[77]

A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in theStandard Model and its supersymmetric extension, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 56,
arXiv:hep-ph/9704448 [hep-ph].

[78]

A. Djouadi et al., ‘An update of the program HDECAY’, The Les Houches 2009 workshop on
TeV colliders: The tools and Monte Carlo working group summary report, 2010,arXiv:1003.1643 [hep-ph].

[79]

A. Bredenstein et al., Precise predictions for the Higgs-boson decay H → WW/ZZ → 4 leptons,
Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 013004, arXiv:hep-ph/0604011 [hep-ph].

[80]

A. Bredenstein et al., Radiative corrections to the semileptonic and hadronic Higgs-boson
decays H → WW/ZZ → 4 fermions, JHEP 0702 (2007) 080,
arXiv:hep-ph/0611234 [hep-ph].

[81]

A. Denner et al., Standard Model Higgs-boson branching ratios with uncertainties,
Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1753, arXiv:1107.5909 [hep-ph].

[82]

J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential
cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 1407 (2014) 079,
arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph].

64

[83]

T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,
JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph].

[84]

T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,
Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph].

[85]

P. Nason, A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms,
JHEP 0411 (2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146 [hep-ph].

[86]

S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari,Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method,
JHEP 0711 (2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph].

[87]

S. Alioli et al.,NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG,JHEP 0904 (2009) 002, arXiv:0812.0578 [hep-ph].

[88]

S. Alioli et al., A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo
programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP 1006 (2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph].

[89]

E. Bagnaschi et al.,Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM,JHEP 1202 (2012) 088, arXiv:1111.2854 [hep-ph].

[90]

D. de Florian et al., Higgs boson production at the LHC: transverse momentum resummation
effects in the H → 2γ, H → WW → `ν`ν and H → ZZ → 4` decay modes,
JHEP 1206 (2012) 132, arXiv:1203.6321 [hep-ph].

[91]

M. Grazzini and H. Sargsyan, Heavy-quark mass effects in Higgs boson production at the LHC,JHEP 1309 (2013) 129, arXiv:1306.4581 [hep-ph].

[92]

J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and G. Zanderighi,
Next-to-Leading order Higgs + 2 jet production via gluon fusion, JHEP 0610 (2006) 028,
arXiv:hep-ph/0608194 [hep-ph].

[93]

G. Bevilacqua et al., HELAC-NLO, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 986,
arXiv:1110.1499 [hep-ph].

[94]

F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,
JHEP 0302 (2003) 027, arXiv:hep-ph/0208156 [hep-ph].

[95]

M. Bähr et al., Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C58 (2008) 639,
arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph].

[96]

M. Wiesemann et al., Higgs production in association with bottom quarks,
JHEP 1502 (2015) 132, arXiv:1409.5301 [hep-ph].

[97]

P. M. Nadolsky et al., Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables,
Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 013004, arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph].

[98]

L. Breiman et al., Classification and Regression Trees,Monterey, CA: Wadsworth and Brooks, 1984.

[99]

P. Speckmayer et al., The toolkit for multivariate data analysis, TMVA 4,
J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 219 (2010) 032057.

[100]

M. Oreglia, A Study of the Reactions ψ0 → γγψ, SLAC-R-0236 (1980).

65[101]

A. Elagin et al., A New Mass Reconstruction Technique for Resonances Decaying to di-tau,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A654 (2011) 481, arXiv:1012.4686 [hep-ex].

[102]

ATLAS Collaboration, Modelling Z → ττ processes in ATLAS with τ-embedded Z → µµ data,
JINST 10 (2015) P09018, arXiv:1506.05623 [hep-ex].

[103]

N. Kauer and G. Passarino,
Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal, JHEP 1208 (2012) 116,
arXiv:1206.4803 [hep-ph].

[104]

F. Caola and K. Melnikov, Constraining the Higgs boson width with ZZ production at the LHC,
Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 054024, arXiv:1307.4935 [hep-ph].

[105]

J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and C. Williams,
Bounding the Higgs width at the LHC using full analytic results for gg → e− e+ µ− µ+ ,JHEP 1404 (2014) 060, arXiv:1311.3589 [hep-ph].

[106]

J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis and C. Williams,
Bounding the Higgs width at the LHC: Complementary results from H → WW,
Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 053011, arXiv:1312.1628 [hep-ph].

[107]

ATLAS Collaboration, Combined search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in pp collisions at√
s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 032003,
arXiv:1207.0319 [hep-ex].

[108]

ATLAS and CMS Collaborations,
Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011,
ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CERN-CMS-NOTE-2011-005 (2011),
url: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1375842.

[109]

L. Moneta et al., The RooStats Project, PoS ACAT2010 (2010) 057,
arXiv:1009.1003 [physics.data-an].

[110]

K. Cranmer et al.,
HistFactory: A tool for creating statistical models for use with RooFit and RooStats,
CERN-OPEN-2012-016 (2012), url: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1456844.

[111]

W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby, The RooFit toolkit for data modeling,eConf C0303241 (2003) MOLT007, arXiv:physics/0306116 [physics].

[112]

G. Cowan et al., Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,
Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1554, Erratum in Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2501,
arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an].

[113]

ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson√
production in the diphoton decay channel at s = 8 TeV with ATLAS, JHEP 1409 (2014) 112,
arXiv:1407.4222 [hep-ex].

[114]

ATLAS Collaboration,
Fiducial and differential cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the four-lepton√
decay channel in pp collisions at s=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Lett. B738 (2014) 234, arXiv:1408.3226 [hep-ex].

[115]

CMS Collaboration, Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs
boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 012004,
arXiv:1411.3441 [hep-ex].

66[116]

C. Englert and M. Spannowsky,
Limitations and Opportunities of Off-Shell Coupling Measurements,
Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 053003, arXiv:1405.0285 [hep-ph].

[117]

T. Lee, A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973) 1226.

[118]

J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber,
The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The Approach to the decoupling limit,
Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 075019, arXiv:hep-ph/0207010 [hep-ph].

[119]

G. Branco et al., Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models,
Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1, arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph].

[120]

ALEPH, CDF, D0, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD Collaborations; LEP and Tevatron Electroweak
Working Group; and SLD Electroweak and Heavy Flavour Groups,
Precision Electroweak Measurements and Constraints on the Standard Model (2010),
arXiv:1012.2367 [hep-ex].

67Appendix
A. Alternative parameterisation of ratios of cross sections and of
branching ratios
An alternative to the parameterisation of Section 4.4 is to normalise the ratios of cross sections and of
branching ratios to their SM values. Compared with Eq. (6), the yield of the production and decayi → H → f can be parameterised as
 h
i
h
i

∗
f
∗ × σi · BR f
·
R
·
ρ
.
(12)
σi · BR f = µi × σi · BR f
= µWW
i/ggF
f
/WW
ggF
SM

SM

Here R and ρ are ratios of cross sections and branching ratios relative to their SM expectations, respectively:
σi /σggF
BR f /BRWW ∗ii .
Ri/ggF = hand ρ f /WW ∗ = h(13)σi /σggF
BR f /BRWW ∗
SM

SM

∗

The data are fitted with µWW
ggF , four ratios of production cross sections and one ratio of branching ratios
for each decay channel other than the H → WW ∗ decay. The results shown in Table 13 are nearly
identical to the best-fit values relative to their SM predictions shown in Table 7. The small differences
are expected from the inclusion of additional nuisance parameters of the SM predictions and from theprecision of the fits. One clear advantage of the parameterisation of Section 4.4 is that the results are
independent of the SM predictions and are, therefore, not affected by the theoretical uncertainties of thepredictions. Consequently, the fitted values of the ratios of cross sections and of partial decay widths
shown in Table 7 have significantly smaller theoretical uncertainties than their counterparts (Ri/ggF andρr/WW ∗ ) in Table 13. The former is only affected by the theoretical uncertainties in the modelling of Higgs
boson production whereas the latter suffer from both the modelling uncertainties and the uncertainties of
the SM predictions.

68∗

Table 13: Best-fit values of gg → H → WW ∗ signal strength µWW
ggF , ratios of cross sections Ri/ggF and of branchingratios ρ f /WW ∗ . All Ri/ggF √and ρ f /WW ∗ are measured relative to their SM values for mH = 125.36 GeV from the
combined analysis of the s = 7 and 8 TeV data. Shown in square brackets are uncertainty components: statistical(first), systematic (second) and signal theoretical (third) uncertainties.

Parameter

Best-fit value
h

WW ∗

µggF

1.15 +0.28−0.24

RVBF/ggF

0.99 +0.46−0.33

RWH/ggF

1.47 +1.06−0.74

RZH/ggF

0.60 +1.39−0.66

RttH/ggF

1.81 +1.10−0.81

ργγ/WW ∗0.97 +0.32
−0.25

h

ρZZ ∗ /WW ∗1.24 +0.42
−0.31

h

ρττ/WW ∗1.20 +0.52−0.38

ρbb/WW ∗0.59 +0.63
−0.37

69

+0.18 +0.12 +0.17−0.18 −0.11 −0.12i+0.37 +0.20 +0.18−0.29 −0.12 −0.10hi+0.87 +0.49 +0.34
−0.32
−0.65
−0.15
h
i
+0.99 +0.93 +0.30−0.60 −0.25 −0.07hi+0.79 +0.61 +0.46−0.64 −0.48 −0.17ih+0.26 +0.15 +0.10−0.22 −0.10 −0.06

i+0.37 +0.18 +0.07−0.29 −0.10 −0.04ih+0.40 +0.29 +0.17−0.32 −0.18 −0.09hi+0.45 +0.43 +0.12−0.27 −0.24 −0.05iThe ATLAS Collaboration
G. Aad85 , B. Abbott113 , J. Abdallah151 , O. Abdinov11 , R. Aben107 , M. Abolins90 , O.S. AbouZeid158 ,H. Abramowicz153 , H. Abreu152 , R. Abreu30 , Y. Abulaiti146a,146b , B.S. Acharya164a,164b,a ,L. Adamczyk38a , D.L. Adams25 , J. Adelman108 , S. Adomeit100 , T. Adye131 , A.A. Affolder74 ,T. Agatonovic-Jovin13 , J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra126a,126f , S.P. Ahlen22 , F. Ahmadov65,b , G. Aielli133a,133b ,H. Akerstedt146a,146b , T.P.A. Åkesson81 , G. Akimoto155 , A.V. Akimov96 , G.L. Alberghi20a,20b ,J. Albert169 , S. Albrand55 , M.J. Alconada Verzini71 , M. Aleksa30 , I.N. Aleksandrov65 , C. Alexa26a ,G. Alexander153 , T. Alexopoulos10 , M. Alhroob113 , G. Alimonti91a , L. Alio85 , J. Alison31 , S.P. Alkire35 ,B.M.M. Allbrooke18 , P.P. Allport74 , A. Aloisio104a,104b , A. Alonso36 , F. Alonso71 , C. Alpigiani76 ,A. Altheimer35 , B. Alvarez Gonzalez30 , D. Álvarez Piqueras167 , M.G. Alviggi104a,104b , B.T. Amadio15 ,K. Amako66 , Y. Amaral Coutinho24a , C. Amelung23 , D. Amidei89 , S.P. Amor Dos Santos126a,126c ,A. Amorim126a,126b , S. Amoroso48 , N. Amram153 , G. Amundsen23 , C. Anastopoulos139 , L.S. Ancu49 ,N. Andari30 , T. Andeen35 , C.F. Anders58b , G. Anders30 , J.K. Anders74 , K.J. Anderson31 ,A. Andreazza91a,91b , V. Andrei58a , S. Angelidakis9 , I. Angelozzi107 , P. Anger44 , A. Angerami35 ,F. Anghinolfi30 , A.V. Anisenkov109,c , N. Anjos12 , A. Annovi124a,124b , M. Antonelli47 , A. Antonov98 ,J. Antos144b , F. Anulli132a , M. Aoki66 , L. Aperio Bella18 , G. Arabidze90 , Y. Arai66 , J.P. Araque126a ,A.T.H. Arce45 , F.A. Arduh71 , J-F. Arguin95 , S. Argyropoulos42 , M. Arik19a , A.J. Armbruster30 ,O. Arnaez30 , V. Arnal82 , H. Arnold48 , M. Arratia28 , O. Arslan21 , A. Artamonov97 , G. Artoni23 ,S. Asai155 , N. Asbah42 , A. Ashkenazi153 , B. Åsman146a,146b , L. Asquith149 , K. Assamagan25 ,R. Astalos144a , M. Atkinson165 , N.B. Atlay141 , B. Auerbach6 , K. Augsten128 , M. Aurousseau145b ,G. Avolio30 , B. Axen15 , M.K. Ayoub117 , G. Azuelos95,d , M.A. Baak30 , A.E. Baas58a , C. Bacci134a,134b ,H. Bachacou136 , K. Bachas154 , M. Backes30 , M. Backhaus30 , P. Bagiacchi132a,132b , P. Bagnaia132a,132b ,Y. Bai33a , T. Bain35 , J.T. Baines131 , O.K. Baker176 , P. Balek129 , T. Balestri148 , F. Balli84 , E. Banas39 ,Sw. Banerjee173 , A.A.E. Bannoura175 , H.S. Bansil18 , L. Barak30 , E.L. Barberio88 , D. Barberis50a,50b ,M. Barbero85 , T. Barillari101 , M. Barisonzi164a,164b , T. Barklow143 , N. Barlow28 , S.L. Barnes84 ,B.M. Barnett131 , R.M. Barnett15 , Z. Barnovska5 , A. Baroncelli134a , G. Barone49 , A.J. Barr120 ,F. Barreiro82 , J. Barreiro Guimarães da Costa57 , R. Bartoldus143 , A.E. Barton72 , P. Bartos144a ,A. Basalaev123 , A. Bassalat117 , A. Basye165 , R.L. Bates53 , S.J. Batista158 , J.R. Batley28 , M. Battaglia137 ,M. Bauce132a,132b , F. Bauer136 , H.S. Bawa143,e , J.B. Beacham111 , M.D. Beattie72 , T. Beau80 ,P.H. Beauchemin161 , R. Beccherle124a,124b , P. Bechtle21 , H.P. Beck17, f , K. Becker120 , M. Becker83 ,S. Becker100 , M. Beckingham170 , C. Becot117 , A.J. Beddall19c , A. Beddall19c , V.A. Bednyakov65 ,C.P. Bee148 , L.J. Beemster107 , T.A. Beermann175 , M. Begel25 , J.K. Behr120 , C. Belanger-Champagne87 ,W.H. Bell49 , G. Bella153 , L. Bellagamba20a , A. Bellerive29 , M. Bellomo86 , K. Belotskiy98 ,O. Beltramello30 , O. Benary153 , D. Benchekroun135a , M. Bender100 , K. Bendtz146a,146b , N. Benekos10 ,Y. Benhammou153 , E. Benhar Noccioli49 , J.A. Benitez Garcia159b , D.P. Benjamin45 , J.R. Bensinger23 ,S. Bentvelsen107 , L. Beresford120 , M. Beretta47 , D. Berge107 , E. Bergeaas Kuutmann166 , N. Berger5 ,F. Berghaus169 , J. Beringer15 , C. Bernard22 , N.R. Bernard86 , C. Bernius110 , F.U. Bernlochner21 ,T. Berry77 , P. Berta129 , C. Bertella83 , G. Bertoli146a,146b , F. Bertolucci124a,124b , C. Bertsche113 ,D. Bertsche113 , M.I. Besana91a , G.J. Besjes106 , O. Bessidskaia Bylund146a,146b , M. Bessner42 ,N. Besson136 , C. Betancourt48 , S. Bethke101 , A.J. Bevan76 , W. Bhimji46 , R.M. Bianchi125 ,L. Bianchini23 , M. Bianco30 , O. Biebel100 , S.P. Bieniek78 , M. Biglietti134a , J. Bilbao De Mendizabal49 ,H. Bilokon47 , M. Bindi54 , S. Binet117 , A. Bingul19c , C. Bini132a,132b , C.W. Black150 , J.E. Black143 ,K.M. Black22 , D. Blackburn138 , R.E. Blair6 , J.-B. Blanchard136 , J.E. Blanco77 , T. Blazek144a , I. Bloch42 ,C. Blocker23 , W. Blum83,∗ , U. Blumenschein54 , G.J. Bobbink107 , V.S. Bobrovnikov109,c ,S.S. Bocchetta81 , A. Bocci45 , C. Bock100 , M. Boehler48 , J.A. Bogaerts30 , A.G. Bogdanchikov109 ,70

C. Bohm146a , V. Boisvert77 , T. Bold38a , V. Boldea26a , A.S. Boldyrev99 , M. Bomben80 , M. Bona76 ,M. Boonekamp136 , A. Borisov130 , G. Borissov72 , S. Borroni42 , J. Bortfeldt100 , V. Bortolotto60a,60b,60c ,K. Bos107 , D. Boscherini20a , M. Bosman12 , J. Boudreau125 , J. Bouffard2 , E.V. Bouhova-Thacker72 ,D. Boumediene34 , C. Bourdarios117 , N. Bousson114 , A. Boveia30 , J. Boyd30 , I.R. Boyko65 , I. Bozic13 ,J. Bracinik18 , A. Brandt8 , G. Brandt54 , O. Brandt58a , U. Bratzler156 , B. Brau86 , J.E. Brau116 ,H.M. Braun175,∗ , S.F. Brazzale164a,164c , K. Brendlinger122 , A.J. Brennan88 , L. Brenner107 , R. Brenner166 ,S. Bressler172 , K. Bristow145c , T.M. Bristow46 , D. Britton53 , D. Britzger42 , F.M. Brochu28 , I. Brock21 ,R. Brock90 , J. Bronner101 , G. Brooijmans35 , T. Brooks77 , W.K. Brooks32b , J. Brosamer15 , E. Brost116 ,J. Brown55 , P.A. Bruckman de Renstrom39 , D. Bruncko144b , R. Bruneliere48 , A. Bruni20a , G. Bruni20a ,M. Bruschi20a , L. Bryngemark81 , T. Buanes14 , Q. Buat142 , P. Buchholz141 , A.G. Buckley53 , S.I. Buda26a ,I.A. Budagov65 , F. Buehrer48 , L. Bugge119 , M.K. Bugge119 , O. Bulekov98 , D. Bullock8 , H. Burckhart30 ,S. Burdin74 , B. Burghgrave108 , S. Burke131 , I. Burmeister43 , E. Busato34 , D. Büscher48 , V. Büscher83 ,P. Bussey53 , J.M. Butler22 , A.I. Butt3 , C.M. Buttar53 , J.M. Butterworth78 , P. Butti107 , W. Buttinger25 ,A. Buzatu53 , A.R. Buzykaev109,c , S. Cabrera Urbán167 , D. Caforio128 , V.M. Cairo37a,37b , O. Cakir4a ,P. Calafiura15 , A. Calandri136 , G. Calderini80 , P. Calfayan100 , L.P. Caloba24a , D. Calvet34 , S. Calvet34 ,R. Camacho Toro31 , S. Camarda42 , P. Camarri133a,133b , D. Cameron119 , L.M. Caminada15 ,R. Caminal Armadans12 , S. Campana30 , M. Campanelli78 , A. Campoverde148 , V. Canale104a,104b ,A. Canepa159a , M. Cano Bret76 , J. Cantero82 , R. Cantrill126a , T. Cao40 , M.D.M. Capeans Garrido30 ,I. Caprini26a , M. Caprini26a , M. Capua37a,37b , R. Caputo83 , R. Cardarelli133a , T. Carli30 , G. Carlino104a ,L. Carminati91a,91b , S. Caron106 , E. Carquin32a , G.D. Carrillo-Montoya8 , J.R. Carter28 ,J. Carvalho126a,126c , D. Casadei78 , M.P. Casado12 , M. Casolino12 , E. Castaneda-Miranda145b ,A. Castelli107 , V. Castillo Gimenez167 , N.F. Castro126a,g , P. Catastini57 , A. Catinaccio30 , J.R. Catmore119 ,A. Cattai30 , J. Caudron83 , V. Cavaliere165 , D. Cavalli91a , M. Cavalli-Sforza12 , V. Cavasinni124a,124b ,F. Ceradini134a,134b , B.C. Cerio45 , K. Cerny129 , A.S. Cerqueira24b , A. Cerri149 , L. Cerrito76 , F. Cerutti15 ,M. Cerv30 , A. Cervelli17 , S.A. Cetin19b , A. Chafaq135a , D. Chakraborty108 , I. Chalupkova129 ,P. Chang165 , B. Chapleau87 , J.D. Chapman28 , D.G. Charlton18 , C.C. Chau158 , C.A. Chavez Barajas149 ,S. Cheatham152 , A. Chegwidden90 , S. Chekanov6 , S.V. Chekulaev159a , G.A. Chelkov65,h ,M.A. Chelstowska89 , C. Chen64 , H. Chen25 , K. Chen148 , L. Chen33d,i , S. Chen33c , X. Chen33f ,Y. Chen67 , H.C. Cheng89 , Y. Cheng31 , A. Cheplakov65 , E. Cheremushkina130 ,R. Cherkaoui El Moursli135e , V. Chernyatin25,∗ , E. Cheu7 , L. Chevalier136 , V. Chiarella47 , J.T. Childers6 ,G. Chiodini73a , A.S. Chisholm18 , R.T. Chislett78 , A. Chitan26a , M.V. Chizhov65 , K. Choi61 ,S. Chouridou9 , B.K.B. Chow100 , V. Christodoulou78 , D. Chromek-Burckhart30 , M.L. Chu151 ,J. Chudoba127 , A.J. Chuinard87 , J.J. Chwastowski39 , L. Chytka115 , G. Ciapetti132a,132b , A.K. Ciftci4a ,D. Cinca53 , V. Cindro75 , I.A. Cioara21 , A. Ciocio15 , Z.H. Citron172 , M. Ciubancan26a , A. Clark49 ,B.L. Clark57 , P.J. Clark46 , R.N. Clarke15 , W. Cleland125 , C. Clement146a,146b , Y. Coadou85 ,M. Cobal164a,164c , A. Coccaro138 , J. Cochran64 , L. Coffey23 , J.G. Cogan143 , B. Cole35 , S. Cole108 ,A.P. Colijn107 , J. Collot55 , T. Colombo58c , G. Compostella101 , P. Conde Muiño126a,126b , E. Coniavitis48 ,S.H. Connell145b , I.A. Connelly77 , S.M. Consonni91a,91b , V. Consorti48 , S. Constantinescu26a ,C. Conta121a,121b , G. Conti30 , F. Conventi104a, j , M. Cooke15 , B.D. Cooper78 , A.M. Cooper-Sarkar120 ,T. Cornelissen175 , M. Corradi20a , F. Corriveau87,k , A. Corso-Radu163 , A. Cortes-Gonzalez12 ,G. Cortiana101 , G. Costa91a , M.J. Costa167 , D. Costanzo139 , D. Côté8 , G. Cottin28 , G. Cowan77 ,B.E. Cox84 , K. Cranmer110 , G. Cree29 , S. Crépé-Renaudin55 , F. Crescioli80 , W.A. Cribbs146a,146b ,M. Crispin Ortuzar120 , M. Cristinziani21 , V. Croft106 , G. Crosetti37a,37b , T. Cuhadar Donszelmann139 ,J. Cummings176 , M. Curatolo47 , C. Cuthbert150 , H. Czirr141 , P. Czodrowski3 , S. D’Auria53 ,M. D’Onofrio74 , M.J. Da Cunha Sargedas De Sousa126a,126b , C. Da Via84 , W. Dabrowski38a ,A. Dafinca120 , T. Dai89 , O. Dale14 , F. Dallaire95 , C. Dallapiccola86 , M. Dam36 , J.R. Dandoy31 ,N.P. Dang48 , A.C. Daniells18 , M. Danninger168 , M. Dano Hoffmann136 , V. Dao48 , G. Darbo50a ,71

S. Darmora8 , J. Dassoulas3 , A. Dattagupta61 , W. Davey21 , C. David169 , T. Davidek129 , E. Davies120,l ,M. Davies153 , P. Davison78 , Y. Davygora58a , E. Dawe88 , I. Dawson139 , R.K. Daya-Ishmukhametova86 ,K. De8 , R. de Asmundis104a , S. De Castro20a,20b , S. De Cecco80 , N. De Groot106 , P. de Jong107 ,H. De la Torre82 , F. De Lorenzi64 , L. De Nooij107 , D. De Pedis132a , A. De Salvo132a , U. De Sanctis149 ,A. De Santo149 , J.B. De Vivie De Regie117 , W.J. Dearnaley72 , R. Debbe25 , C. Debenedetti137 ,D.V. Dedovich65 , I. Deigaard107 , J. Del Peso82 , T. Del Prete124a,124b , D. Delgove117 , F. Deliot136 ,C.M. Delitzsch49 , M. Deliyergiyev75 , A. Dell’Acqua30 , L. Dell’Asta22 , M. Dell’Orso124a,124b ,M. Della Pietra104a, j , D. della Volpe49 , M. Delmastro5 , P.A. Delsart55 , C. Deluca107 , D.A. DeMarco158 ,S. Demers176 , M. Demichev65 , A. Demilly80 , S.P. Denisov130 , D. Derendarz39 , J.E. Derkaoui135d ,F. Derue80 , P. Dervan74 , K. Desch21 , C. Deterre42 , P.O. Deviveiros30 , A. Dewhurst131 , S. Dhaliwal23 ,A. Di Ciaccio133a,133b , L. Di Ciaccio5 , A. Di Domenico132a,132b , C. Di Donato104a,104b ,A. Di Girolamo30 , B. Di Girolamo30 , A. Di Mattia152 , B. Di Micco134a,134b , R. Di Nardo47 ,A. Di Simone48 , R. Di Sipio158 , D. Di Valentino29 , C. Diaconu85 , M. Diamond158 , F.A. Dias46 ,M.A. Diaz32a , E.B. Diehl89 , J. Dietrich16 , S. Diglio85 , A. Dimitrievska13 , J. Dingfelder21 , P. Dita26a ,S. Dita26a , F. Dittus30 , F. Djama85 , T. Djobava51b , J.I. Djuvsland58a , M.A.B. do Vale24c , D. Dobos30 ,M. Dobre26a , C. Doglioni49 , T. Dohmae155 , J. Dolejsi129 , Z. Dolezal129 , B.A. Dolgoshein98,∗ ,M. Donadelli24d , S. Donati124a,124b , P. Dondero121a,121b , J. Donini34 , J. Dopke131 , A. Doria104a ,M.T. Dova71 , A.T. Doyle53 , E. Drechsler54 , M. Dris10 , E. Dubreuil34 , E. Duchovni172 , G. Duckeck100 ,O.A. Ducu26a,85 , D. Duda175 , A. Dudarev30 , L. Duflot117 , L. Duguid77 , M. Dührssen30 , M. Dunford58a ,H. Duran Yildiz4a , M. Düren52 , A. Durglishvili51b , D. Duschinger44 , M. Dyndal38a , C. Eckardt42 ,K.M. Ecker101 , R.C. Edgar89 , W. Edson2 , N.C. Edwards46 , W. Ehrenfeld21 , T. Eifert30 , G. Eigen14 ,K. Einsweiler15 , T. Ekelof166 , M. El Kacimi135c , M. Ellert166 , S. Elles5 , F. Ellinghaus83 , A.A. Elliot169 ,N. Ellis30 , J. Elmsheuser100 , M. Elsing30 , D. Emeliyanov131 , Y. Enari155 , O.C. Endner83 , M. Endo118 ,J. Erdmann43 , A. Ereditato17 , G. Ernis175 , J. Ernst2 , M. Ernst25 , S. Errede165 , E. Ertel83 , M. Escalier117 ,H. Esch43 , C. Escobar125 , B. Esposito47 , A.I. Etienvre136 , E. Etzion153 , H. Evans61 , A. Ezhilov123 ,L. Fabbri20a,20b , G. Facini31 , R.M. Fakhrutdinov130 , S. Falciano132a , R.J. Falla78 , J. Faltova129 ,Y. Fang33a , M. Fanti91a,91b , A. Farbin8 , A. Farilla134a , T. Farooque12 , S. Farrell15 , S.M. Farrington170 ,P. Farthouat30 , F. Fassi135e , P. Fassnacht30 , D. Fassouliotis9 , M. Faucci Giannelli77 , A. Favareto50a,50b ,L. Fayard117 , P. Federic144a , O.L. Fedin123,m , W. Fedorko168 , S. Feigl30 , L. Feligioni85 , C. Feng33d ,E.J. Feng6 , H. Feng89 , A.B. Fenyuk130 , P. Fernandez Martinez167 , S. Fernandez Perez30 , J. Ferrando53 ,A. Ferrari166 , P. Ferrari107 , R. Ferrari121a , D.E. Ferreira de Lima53 , A. Ferrer167 , D. Ferrere49 ,C. Ferretti89 , A. Ferretto Parodi50a,50b , M. Fiascaris31 , F. Fiedler83 , A. Filipčič75 , M. Filipuzzi42 ,F. Filthaut106 , M. Fincke-Keeler169 , K.D. Finelli150 , M.C.N. Fiolhais126a,126c , L. Fiorini167 , A. Firan40 ,A. Fischer2 , C. Fischer12 , J. Fischer175 , W.C. Fisher90 , E.A. Fitzgerald23 , M. Flechl48 , I. Fleck141 ,P. Fleischmann89 , S. Fleischmann175 , G.T. Fletcher139 , G. Fletcher76 , T. Flick175 , A. Floderus81 ,L.R. Flores Castillo60a , M.J. Flowerdew101 , A. Formica136 , A. Forti84 , D. Fournier117 , H. Fox72 ,S. Fracchia12 , P. Francavilla80 , M. Franchini20a,20b , D. Francis30 , L. Franconi119 , M. Franklin57 ,M. Fraternali121a,121b , D. Freeborn78 , S.T. French28 , F. Friedrich44 , D. Froidevaux30 , J.A. Frost120 ,C. Fukunaga156 , E. Fullana Torregrosa83 , B.G. Fulsom143 , J. Fuster167 , C. Gabaldon55 , O. Gabizon175 ,A. Gabrielli20a,20b , A. Gabrielli132a,132b , S. Gadatsch107 , S. Gadomski49 , G. Gagliardi50a,50b , P. Gagnon61 ,C. Galea106 , B. Galhardo126a,126c , E.J. Gallas120 , B.J. Gallop131 , P. Gallus128 , G. Galster36 , K.K. Gan111 ,J. Gao33b,85 , Y. Gao46 , Y.S. Gao143,e , F.M. Garay Walls46 , F. Garberson176 , C. García167 ,J.E. García Navarro167 , M. Garcia-Sciveres15 , R.W. Gardner31 , N. Garelli143 , V. Garonne119 , C. Gatti47 ,A. Gaudiello50a,50b , G. Gaudio121a , B. Gaur141 , L. Gauthier95 , P. Gauzzi132a,132b , I.L. Gavrilenko96 ,C. Gay168 , G. Gaycken21 , E.N. Gazis10 , P. Ge33d , Z. Gecse168 , C.N.P. Gee131 , D.A.A. Geerts107 ,Ch. Geich-Gimbel21 , M.P. Geisler58a , C. Gemme50a , M.H. Genest55 , S. Gentile132a,132b , M. George54 ,S. George77 , D. Gerbaudo163 , A. Gershon153 , H. Ghazlane135b , B. Giacobbe20a , S. Giagu132a,132b ,72

V. Giangiobbe12 , P. Giannetti124a,124b , B. Gibbard25 , S.M. Gibson77 , M. Gilchriese15 , T.P.S. Gillam28 ,D. Gillberg30 , G. Gilles34 , D.M. Gingrich3,d , N. Giokaris9 , M.P. Giordani164a,164c , F.M. Giorgi20a ,F.M. Giorgi16 , P.F. Giraud136 , P. Giromini47 , D. Giugni91a , C. Giuliani48 , M. Giulini58b ,B.K. Gjelsten119 , S. Gkaitatzis154 , I. Gkialas154 , E.L. Gkougkousis117 , L.K. Gladilin99 , C. Glasman82 ,J. Glatzer30 , P.C.F. Glaysher46 , A. Glazov42 , M. Goblirsch-Kolb101 , J.R. Goddard76 , J. Godlewski39 ,S. Goldfarb89 , T. Golling49 , D. Golubkov130 , A. Gomes126a,126b,126d , R. Gonçalo126a ,J. Goncalves Pinto Firmino Da Costa136 , L. Gonella21 , S. González de la Hoz167 , G. Gonzalez Parra12 ,S. Gonzalez-Sevilla49 , L. Goossens30 , P.A. Gorbounov97 , H.A. Gordon25 , I. Gorelov105 , B. Gorini30 ,E. Gorini73a,73b , A. Gorišek75 , E. Gornicki39 , A.T. Goshaw45 , C. Gössling43 , M.I. Gostkin65 ,D. Goujdami135c , A.G. Goussiou138 , N. Govender145b , H.M.X. Grabas137 , L. Graber54 ,I. Grabowska-Bold38a , P. Grafström20a,20b , K-J. Grahn42 , J. Gramling49 , E. Gramstad119 ,S. Grancagnolo16 , V. Grassi148 , V. Gratchev123 , H.M. Gray30 , E. Graziani134a , Z.D. Greenwood79,n ,K. Gregersen78 , I.M. Gregor42 , P. Grenier143 , J. Griffiths8 , A.A. Grillo137 , K. Grimm72 , S. Grinstein12,o ,Ph. Gris34 , J.-F. Grivaz117 , J.P. Grohs44 , A. Grohsjean42 , E. Gross172 , J. Grosse-Knetter54 , G.C. Grossi79 ,Z.J. Grout149 , L. Guan33b , J. Guenther128 , F. Guescini49 , D. Guest176 , O. Gueta153 , E. Guido50a,50b ,T. Guillemin117 , S. Guindon2 , U. Gul53 , C. Gumpert44 , J. Guo33e , S. Gupta120 , P. Gutierrez113 ,N.G. Gutierrez Ortiz53 , C. Gutschow44 , C. Guyot136 , C. Gwenlan120 , C.B. Gwilliam74 , A. Haas110 ,C. Haber15 , H.K. Hadavand8 , N. Haddad135e , P. Haefner21 , S. Hageböck21 , Z. Hajduk39 ,H. Hakobyan177 , M. Haleem42 , J. Haley114 , D. Hall120 , G. Halladjian90 , G.D. Hallewell85 ,K. Hamacher175 , P. Hamal115 , K. Hamano169 , M. Hamer54 , A. Hamilton145a , G.N. Hamity145c ,P.G. Hamnett42 , L. Han33b , K. Hanagaki118 , K. Hanawa155 , M. Hance15 , P. Hanke58a , R. Hanna136 ,J.B. Hansen36 , J.D. Hansen36 , M.C. Hansen21 , P.H. Hansen36 , K. Hara160 , A.S. Hard173 , T. Harenberg175 ,F. Hariri117 , S. Harkusha92 , R.D. Harrington46 , P.F. Harrison170 , F. Hartjes107 , M. Hasegawa67 ,S. Hasegawa103 , Y. Hasegawa140 , A. Hasib113 , S. Hassani136 , S. Haug17 , R. Hauser90 , L. Hauswald44 ,M. Havranek127 , C.M. Hawkes18 , R.J. Hawkings30 , A.D. Hawkins81 , T. Hayashi160 , D. Hayden90 ,C.P. Hays120 , J.M. Hays76 , H.S. Hayward74 , S.J. Haywood131 , S.J. Head18 , T. Heck83 , V. Hedberg81 ,L. Heelan8 , S. Heim122 , T. Heim175 , B. Heinemann15 , L. Heinrich110 , J. Hejbal127 , L. Helary22 ,S. Hellman146a,146b , D. Hellmich21 , C. Helsens30 , J. Henderson120 , R.C.W. Henderson72 , Y. Heng173 ,C. Hengler42 , A. Henrichs176 , A.M. Henriques Correia30 , S. Henrot-Versille117 , G.H. Herbert16 ,Y. Hernández Jiménez167 , R. Herrberg-Schubert16 , G. Herten48 , R. Hertenberger100 , L. Hervas30 ,G.G. Hesketh78 , N.P. Hessey107 , J.W. Hetherly40 , R. Hickling76 , E. Higón-Rodriguez167 , E. Hill169 ,J.C. Hill28 , K.H. Hiller42 , S.J. Hillier18 , I. Hinchliffe15 , E. Hines122 , R.R. Hinman15 , M. Hirose157 ,D. Hirschbuehl175 , J. Hobbs148 , N. Hod107 , M.C. Hodgkinson139 , P. Hodgson139 , A. Hoecker30 ,M.R. Hoeferkamp105 , F. Hoenig100 , M. Hohlfeld83 , D. Hohn21 , T.R. Holmes15 , M. Homann43 ,T.M. Hong125 , L. Hooft van Huysduynen110 , W.H. Hopkins116 , Y. Horii103 , A.J. Horton142 ,J-Y. Hostachy55 , S. Hou151 , A. Hoummada135a , J. Howard120 , J. Howarth42 , M. Hrabovsky115 ,I. Hristova16 , J. Hrivnac117 , T. Hryn’ova5 , A. Hrynevich93 , C. Hsu145c , P.J. Hsu151,p , S.-C. Hsu138 ,D. Hu35 , Q. Hu33b , X. Hu89 , Y. Huang42 , Z. Hubacek30 , F. Hubaut85 , F. Huegging21 , T.B. Huffman120 ,E.W. Hughes35 , G. Hughes72 , M. Huhtinen30 , T.A. Hülsing83 , N. Huseynov65,b , J. Huston90 , J. Huth57 ,G. Iacobucci49 , G. Iakovidis25 , I. Ibragimov141 , L. Iconomidou-Fayard117 , E. Ideal176 , Z. Idrissi135e ,P. Iengo30 , O. Igonkina107 , T. Iizawa171 , Y. Ikegami66 , K. Ikematsu141 , M. Ikeno66 , Y. Ilchenko31,q ,D. Iliadis154 , N. Ilic143 , Y. Inamaru67 , T. Ince101 , P. Ioannou9 , M. Iodice134a , K. Iordanidou35 ,V. Ippolito57 , A. Irles Quiles167 , C. Isaksson166 , M. Ishino68 , M. Ishitsuka157 , R. Ishmukhametov111 ,C. Issever120 , S. Istin19a , J.M. Iturbe Ponce84 , R. Iuppa133a,133b , J. Ivarsson81 , W. Iwanski39 ,H. Iwasaki66 , J.M. Izen41 , V. Izzo104a , S. Jabbar3 , B. Jackson122 , M. Jackson74 , P. Jackson1 ,M.R. Jaekel30 , V. Jain2 , K. Jakobs48 , S. Jakobsen30 , T. Jakoubek127 , J. Jakubek128 , D.O. Jamin151 ,D.K. Jana79 , E. Jansen78 , R.W. Jansky62 , J. Janssen21 , M. Janus170 , G. Jarlskog81 , N. Javadov65,b ,73

T. Javůrek48 , L. Jeanty15 , J. Jejelava51a,r , G.-Y. Jeng150 , D. Jennens88 , P. Jenni48,s , J. Jentzsch43 ,C. Jeske170 , S. Jézéquel5 , H. Ji173 , J. Jia148 , Y. Jiang33b , S. Jiggins78 , J. Jimenez Pena167 , S. Jin33a ,A. Jinaru26a , O. Jinnouchi157 , M.D. Joergensen36 , P. Johansson139 , K.A. Johns7 , K. Jon-And146a,146b ,G. Jones170 , R.W.L. Jones72 , T.J. Jones74 , J. Jongmanns58a , P.M. Jorge126a,126b , K.D. Joshi84 ,J. Jovicevic159a , X. Ju173 , C.A. Jung43 , P. Jussel62 , A. Juste Rozas12,o , M. Kaci167 , A. Kaczmarska39 ,M. Kado117 , H. Kagan111 , M. Kagan143 , S.J. Kahn85 , E. Kajomovitz45 , C.W. Kalderon120 , S. Kama40 ,A. Kamenshchikov130 , N. Kanaya155 , M. Kaneda30 , S. Kaneti28 , V.A. Kantserov98 , J. Kanzaki66 ,B. Kaplan110 , A. Kapliy31 , D. Kar53 , K. Karakostas10 , A. Karamaoun3 , N. Karastathis10,107 ,M.J. Kareem54 , M. Karnevskiy83 , S.N. Karpov65 , Z.M. Karpova65 , K. Karthik110 , V. Kartvelishvili72 ,A.N. Karyukhin130 , L. Kashif173 , R.D. Kass111 , A. Kastanas14 , Y. Kataoka155 , A. Katre49 , J. Katzy42 ,K. Kawagoe70 , T. Kawamoto155 , G. Kawamura54 , S. Kazama155 , V.F. Kazanin109,c , M.Y. Kazarinov65 ,R. Keeler169 , R. Kehoe40 , J.S. Keller42 , J.J. Kempster77 , H. Keoshkerian84 , O. Kepka127 ,B.P. Kerševan75 , S. Kersten175 , R.A. Keyes87 , F. Khalil-zada11 , H. Khandanyan146a,146b , A. Khanov114 ,A.G. Kharlamov109,c , T.J. Khoo28 , V. Khovanskiy97 , E. Khramov65 , J. Khubua51b,t , H.Y. Kim8 ,H. Kim146a,146b , S.H. Kim160 , Y. Kim31 , N. Kimura154 , O.M. Kind16 , B.T. King74 , M. King167 ,R.S.B. King120 , S.B. King168 , J. Kirk131 , A.E. Kiryunin101 , T. Kishimoto67 , D. Kisielewska38a , F. Kiss48 ,K. Kiuchi160 , O. Kivernyk136 , E. Kladiva144b , M.H. Klein35 , M. Klein74 , U. Klein74 , K. Kleinknecht83 ,P. Klimek146a,146b , A. Klimentov25 , R. Klingenberg43 , J.A. Klinger84 , T. Klioutchnikova30 ,E.-E. Kluge58a , P. Kluit107 , S. Kluth101 , E. Kneringer62 , E.B.F.G. Knoops85 , A. Knue53 ,A. Kobayashi155 , D. Kobayashi157 , T. Kobayashi155 , M. Kobel44 , M. Kocian143 , P. Kodys129 , T. Koffas29 ,E. Koffeman107 , L.A. Kogan120 , S. Kohlmann175 , Z. Kohout128 , T. Kohriki66 , T. Koi143 , H. Kolanoski16 ,I. Koletsou5 , A.A. Komar96,∗ , Y. Komori155 , T. Kondo66 , N. Kondrashova42 , K. Köneke48 ,A.C. König106 , S. König83 , T. Kono66,u , R. Konoplich110,v , N. Konstantinidis78 , R. Kopeliansky152 ,S. Koperny38a , L. Köpke83 , A.K. Kopp48 , K. Korcyl39 , K. Kordas154 , A. Korn78 , A.A. Korol109,c ,I. Korolkov12 , E.V. Korolkova139 , O. Kortner101 , S. Kortner101 , T. Kosek129 , V.V. Kostyukhin21 ,V.M. Kotov65 , A. Kotwal45 , A. Kourkoumeli-Charalampidi154 , C. Kourkoumelis9 , V. Kouskoura25 ,A. Koutsman159a , R. Kowalewski169 , T.Z. Kowalski38a , W. Kozanecki136 , A.S. Kozhin130 ,V.A. Kramarenko99 , G. Kramberger75 , D. Krasnopevtsev98 , A. Krasznahorkay30 , J.K. Kraus21 ,A. Kravchenko25 , S. Kreiss110 , M. Kretz58c , J. Kretzschmar74 , K. Kreutzfeldt52 , P. Krieger158 ,K. Krizka31 , K. Kroeninger43 , H. Kroha101 , J. Kroll122 , J. Kroseberg21 , J. Krstic13 , U. Kruchonak65 ,H. Krüger21 , N. Krumnack64 , Z.V. Krumshteyn65 , A. Kruse173 , M.C. Kruse45 , M. Kruskal22 ,T. Kubota88 , H. Kucuk78 , S. Kuday4c , S. Kuehn48 , A. Kugel58c , F. Kuger174 , A. Kuhl137 , T. Kuhl42 ,V. Kukhtin65 , Y. Kulchitsky92 , S. Kuleshov32b , M. Kuna132a,132b , T. Kunigo68 , A. Kupco127 ,H. Kurashige67 , Y.A. Kurochkin92 , R. Kurumida67 , V. Kus127 , E.S. Kuwertz169 , M. Kuze157 , J. Kvita115 ,T. Kwan169 , D. Kyriazopoulos139 , A. La Rosa49 , J.L. La Rosa Navarro24d , L. La Rotonda37a,37b ,C. Lacasta167 , F. Lacava132a,132b , J. Lacey29 , H. Lacker16 , D. Lacour80 , V.R. Lacuesta167 , E. Ladygin65 ,R. Lafaye5 , B. Laforge80 , T. Lagouri176 , S. Lai48 , L. Lambourne78 , S. Lammers61 , C.L. Lampen7 ,W. Lampl7 , E. Lançon136 , U. Landgraf48 , M.P.J. Landon76 , V.S. Lang58a , J.C. Lange12 , A.J. Lankford163 ,F. Lanni25 , K. Lantzsch30 , S. Laplace80 , C. Lapoire30 , J.F. Laporte136 , T. Lari91a ,F. Lasagni Manghi20a,20b , M. Lassnig30 , P. Laurelli47 , W. Lavrijsen15 , A.T. Law137 , P. Laycock74 ,T. Lazovich57 , O. Le Dortz80 , E. Le Guirriec85 , E. Le Menedeu12 , M. LeBlanc169 , T. LeCompte6 ,F. Ledroit-Guillon55 , C.A. Lee145b , S.C. Lee151 , L. Lee1 , G. Lefebvre80 , M. Lefebvre169 , F. Legger100 ,C. Leggett15 , A. Lehan74 , G. Lehmann Miotto30 , X. Lei7 , W.A. Leight29 , A. Leisos154,w , A.G. Leister176 ,M.A.L. Leite24d , R. Leitner129 , D. Lellouch172 , B. Lemmer54 , K.J.C. Leney78 , T. Lenz21 , B. Lenzi30 ,R. Leone7 , S. Leone124a,124b , C. Leonidopoulos46 , S. Leontsinis10 , C. Leroy95 , C.G. Lester28 ,M. Levchenko123 , J. Levêque5 , D. Levin89 , L.J. Levinson172 , M. Levy18 , A. Lewis120 , A.M. Leyko21 ,M. Leyton41 , B. Li33b,x , H. Li148 , H.L. Li31 , L. Li45 , L. Li33e , S. Li45 , Y. Li33c,y , Z. Liang137 , H. Liao34 ,74

B. Liberti133a , A. Liblong158 , P. Lichard30 , K. Lie165 , J. Liebal21 , W. Liebig14 , C. Limbach21 ,A. Limosani150 , S.C. Lin151,z , T.H. Lin83 , F. Linde107 , B.E. Lindquist148 , J.T. Linnemann90 ,E. Lipeles122 , A. Lipniacka14 , M. Lisovyi58b , T.M. Liss165 , D. Lissauer25 , A. Lister168 , A.M. Litke137 ,B. Liu151,aa , D. Liu151 , J. Liu85 , J.B. Liu33b , K. Liu85 , L. Liu165 , M. Liu45 , M. Liu33b , Y. Liu33b ,M. Livan121a,121b , A. Lleres55 , J. Llorente Merino82 , S.L. Lloyd76 , F. Lo Sterzo151 , E. Lobodzinska42 ,P. Loch7 , W.S. Lockman137 , F.K. Loebinger84 , A.E. Loevschall-Jensen36 , A. Loginov176 , T. Lohse16 ,K. Lohwasser42 , M. Lokajicek127 , B.A. Long22 , J.D. Long89 , R.E. Long72 , K.A. Looper111 ,L. Lopes126a , D. Lopez Mateos57 , B. Lopez Paredes139 , I. Lopez Paz12 , J. Lorenz100 ,N. Lorenzo Martinez61 , M. Losada162 , P. Loscutoff15 , P.J. Lösel100 , X. Lou33a , A. Lounis117 , J. Love6 ,P.A. Love72 , N. Lu89 , H.J. Lubatti138 , C. Luci132a,132b , A. Lucotte55 , F. Luehring61 , W. Lukas62 ,L. Luminari132a , O. Lundberg146a,146b , B. Lund-Jensen147 , D. Lynn25 , R. Lysak127 , E. Lytken81 , H. Ma25 ,L.L. Ma33d , G. Maccarrone47 , A. Macchiolo101 , C.M. Macdonald139 , J. Machado Miguens122,126b ,D. Macina30 , D. Madaffari85 , R. Madar34 , H.J. Maddocks72 , W.F. Mader44 , A. Madsen166 , S. Maeland14 ,T. Maeno25 , A. Maevskiy99 , E. Magradze54 , K. Mahboubi48 , J. Mahlstedt107 , C. Maiani136 ,C. Maidantchik24a , A.A. Maier101 , T. Maier100 , A. Maio126a,126b,126d , S. Majewski116 , Y. Makida66 ,N. Makovec117 , B. Malaescu80 , Pa. Malecki39 , V.P. Maleev123 , F. Malek55 , U. Mallik63 , D. Malon6 ,C. Malone143 , S. Maltezos10 , V.M. Malyshev109 , S. Malyukov30 , J. Mamuzic42 , G. Mancini47 ,B. Mandelli30 , L. Mandelli91a , I. Mandić75 , R. Mandrysch63 , J. Maneira126a,126b , A. Manfredini101 ,L. Manhaes de Andrade Filho24b , J. Manjarres Ramos159b , A. Mann100 , P.M. Manning137 ,A. Manousakis-Katsikakis9 , B. Mansoulie136 , R. Mantifel87 , M. Mantoani54 , L. Mapelli30 , L. March145c ,G. Marchiori80 , M. Marcisovsky127 , C.P. Marino169 , M. Marjanovic13 , F. Marroquim24a , S.P. Marsden84 ,Z. Marshall15 , L.F. Marti17 , S. Marti-Garcia167 , B. Martin90 , T.A. Martin170 , V.J. Martin46 ,B. Martin dit Latour14 , M. Martinez12,o , S. Martin-Haugh131 , V.S. Martoiu26a , A.C. Martyniuk78 ,M. Marx138 , F. Marzano132a , A. Marzin30 , L. Masetti83 , T. Mashimo155 , R. Mashinistov96 , J. Masik84 ,A.L. Maslennikov109,c , I. Massa20a,20b , L. Massa20a,20b , N. Massol5 , P. Mastrandrea148 ,A. Mastroberardino37a,37b , T. Masubuchi155 , P. Mättig175 , J. Mattmann83 , J. Maurer26a , S.J. Maxfield74 ,D.A. Maximov109,c , R. Mazini151 , S.M. Mazza91a,91b , L. Mazzaferro133a,133b , G. Mc Goldrick158 ,S.P. Mc Kee89 , A. McCarn89 , R.L. McCarthy148 , T.G. McCarthy29 , N.A. McCubbin131 ,K.W. McFarlane56,∗ , J.A. Mcfayden78 , G. Mchedlidze54 , S.J. McMahon131 , R.A. McPherson169,k ,M. Medinnis42 , S. Meehan145a , S. Mehlhase100 , A. Mehta74 , K. Meier58a , C. Meineck100 , B. Meirose41 ,B.R. Mellado Garcia145c , F. Meloni17 , A. Mengarelli20a,20b , S. Menke101 , E. Meoni161 , K.M. Mercurio57 ,S. Mergelmeyer21 , P. Mermod49 , L. Merola104a,104b , C. Meroni91a , F.S. Merritt31 , A. Messina132a,132b ,J. Metcalfe25 , A.S. Mete163 , C. Meyer83 , C. Meyer122 , J-P. Meyer136 , J. Meyer107 , R.P. Middleton131 ,S. Miglioranzi164a,164c , L. Mijović21 , G. Mikenberg172 , M. Mikestikova127 , M. Mikuž75 , M. Milesi88 ,A. Milic30 , D.W. Miller31 , C. Mills46 , A. Milov172 , D.A. Milstead146a,146b , A.A. Minaenko130 ,Y. Minami155 , I.A. Minashvili65 , A.I. Mincer110 , B. Mindur38a , M. Mineev65 , Y. Ming173 , L.M. Mir12 ,T. Mitani171 , J. Mitrevski100 , V.A. Mitsou167 , A. Miucci49 , P.S. Miyagawa139 , J.U. Mjörnmark81 ,T. Moa146a,146b , K. Mochizuki85 , S. Mohapatra35 , W. Mohr48 , S. Molander146a,146b , R. Moles-Valls167 ,K. Mönig42 , C. Monini55 , J. Monk36 , E. Monnier85 , J. Montejo Berlingen12 , F. Monticelli71 ,S. Monzani132a,132b , R.W. Moore3 , N. Morange117 , D. Moreno162 , M. Moreno Llácer54 , P. Morettini50a ,M. Morgenstern44 , M. Morii57 , M. Morinaga155 , V. Morisbak119 , S. Moritz83 , A.K. Morley147 ,G. Mornacchi30 , J.D. Morris76 , S.S. Mortensen36 , A. Morton53 , L. Morvaj103 , M. Mosidze51b ,J. Moss111 , K. Motohashi157 , R. Mount143 , E. Mountricha25 , S.V. Mouraviev96,∗ , E.J.W. Moyse86 ,S. Muanza85 , R.D. Mudd18 , F. Mueller101 , J. Mueller125 , K. Mueller21 , R.S.P. Mueller100 , T. Mueller28 ,D. Muenstermann49 , P. Mullen53 , Y. Munwes153 , J.A. Murillo Quijada18 , W.J. Murray170,131 ,H. Musheghyan54 , E. Musto152 , A.G. Myagkov130,ab , M. Myska128 , O. Nackenhorst54 , J. Nadal54 ,K. Nagai120 , R. Nagai157 , Y. Nagai85 , K. Nagano66 , A. Nagarkar111 , Y. Nagasaka59 , K. Nagata160 ,75

M. Nagel101 , E. Nagy85 , A.M. Nairz30 , Y. Nakahama30 , K. Nakamura66 , T. Nakamura155 , I. Nakano112 ,H. Namasivayam41 , R.F. Naranjo Garcia42 , R. Narayan31 , T. Naumann42 , G. Navarro162 , R. Nayyar7 ,H.A. Neal89 , P.Yu. Nechaeva96 , T.J. Neep84 , P.D. Nef143 , A. Negri121a,121b , M. Negrini20a ,S. Nektarijevic106 , C. Nellist117 , A. Nelson163 , S. Nemecek127 , P. Nemethy110 , A.A. Nepomuceno24a ,M. Nessi30,ac , M.S. Neubauer165 , M. Neumann175 , R.M. Neves110 , P. Nevski25 , P.R. Newman18 ,D.H. Nguyen6 , R.B. Nickerson120 , R. Nicolaidou136 , B. Nicquevert30 , J. Nielsen137 , N. Nikiforou35 ,A. Nikiforov16 , V. Nikolaenko130,ab , I. Nikolic-Audit80 , K. Nikolopoulos18 , J.K. Nilsen119 , P. Nilsson25 ,Y. Ninomiya155 , A. Nisati132a , R. Nisius101 , T. Nobe157 , M. Nomachi118 , I. Nomidis29 , T. Nooney76 ,S. Norberg113 , M. Nordberg30 , O. Novgorodova44 , S. Nowak101 , M. Nozaki66 , L. Nozka115 , K. Ntekas10 ,G. Nunes Hanninger88 , T. Nunnemann100 , E. Nurse78 , F. Nuti88 , B.J. O’Brien46 , F. O’grady7 ,D.C. O’Neil142 , V. O’Shea53 , F.G. Oakham29,d , H. Oberlack101 , T. Obermann21 , J. Ocariz80 , A. Ochi67 ,I. Ochoa78 , J.P. Ochoa-Ricoux32a , S. Oda70 , S. Odaka66 , H. Ogren61 , A. Oh84 , S.H. Oh45 , C.C. Ohm15 ,H. Ohman166 , H. Oide30 , W. Okamura118 , H. Okawa160 , Y. Okumura31 , T. Okuyama155 , A. Olariu26a ,S.A. Olivares Pino46 , D. Oliveira Damazio25 , E. Oliver Garcia167 , A. Olszewski39 , J. Olszowska39 ,A. Onofre126a,126e , P.U.E. Onyisi31,q , C.J. Oram159a , M.J. Oreglia31 , Y. Oren153 , D. Orestano134a,134b ,N. Orlando154 , C. Oropeza Barrera53 , R.S. Orr158 , B. Osculati50a,50b , R. Ospanov84 ,G. Otero y Garzon27 , H. Otono70 , M. Ouchrif135d , E.A. Ouellette169 , F. Ould-Saada119 , A. Ouraou136 ,K.P. Oussoren107 , Q. Ouyang33a , A. Ovcharova15 , M. Owen53 , R.E. Owen18 , V.E. Ozcan19a , N. Ozturk8 ,K. Pachal142 , A. Pacheco Pages12 , C. Padilla Aranda12 , M. Pagáčová48 , S. Pagan Griso15 , E. Paganis139 ,C. Pahl101 , F. Paige25 , P. Pais86 , K. Pajchel119 , G. Palacino159b , S. Palestini30 , M. Palka38b , D. Pallin34 ,A. Palma126a,126b , Y.B. Pan173 , E. Panagiotopoulou10 , C.E. Pandini80 , J.G. Panduro Vazquez77 ,P. Pani146a,146b , S. Panitkin25 , D. Pantea26a , L. Paolozzi49 , Th.D. Papadopoulou10 , K. Papageorgiou154 ,A. Paramonov6 , D. Paredes Hernandez154 , M.A. Parker28 , K.A. Parker139 , F. Parodi50a,50b ,J.A. Parsons35 , U. Parzefall48 , E. Pasqualucci132a , S. Passaggio50a , F. Pastore134a,134b,∗ , Fr. Pastore77 ,G. Pásztor29 , S. Pataraia175 , N.D. Patel150 , J.R. Pater84 , T. Pauly30 , J. Pearce169 , B. Pearson113 ,L.E. Pedersen36 , M. Pedersen119 , S. Pedraza Lopez167 , R. Pedro126a,126b , S.V. Peleganchuk109,c ,D. Pelikan166 , H. Peng33b , B. Penning31 , J. Penwell61 , D.V. Perepelitsa25 , E. Perez Codina159a ,M.T. Pérez García-Estañ167 , L. Perini91a,91b , H. Pernegger30 , S. Perrella104a,104b , R. Peschke42 ,V.D. Peshekhonov65 , K. Peters30 , R.F.Y. Peters84 , B.A. Petersen30 , T.C. Petersen36 , E. Petit42 ,A. Petridis146a,146b , C. Petridou154 , E. Petrolo132a , F. Petrucci134a,134b , N.E. Pettersson157 , R. Pezoa32b ,P.W. Phillips131 , G. Piacquadio143 , E. Pianori170 , A. Picazio49 , E. Piccaro76 , M. Piccinini20a,20b ,M.A. Pickering120 , R. Piegaia27 , D.T. Pignotti111 , J.E. Pilcher31 , A.D. Pilkington84 , J. Pina126a,126b,126d ,M. Pinamonti164a,164c,ad , J.L. Pinfold3 , A. Pingel36 , B. Pinto126a , S. Pires80 , M. Pitt172 , C. Pizio91a,91b ,L. Plazak144a , M.-A. Pleier25 , V. Pleskot129 , E. Plotnikova65 , P. Plucinski146a,146b , D. Pluth64 ,R. Poettgen83 , L. Poggioli117 , D. Pohl21 , G. Polesello121a , A. Policicchio37a,37b , R. Polifka158 ,A. Polini20a , C.S. Pollard53 , V. Polychronakos25 , K. Pommès30 , L. Pontecorvo132a , B.G. Pope90 ,G.A. Popeneciu26b , D.S. Popovic13 , A. Poppleton30 , S. Pospisil128 , K. Potamianos15 , I.N. Potrap65 ,C.J. Potter149 , C.T. Potter116 , G. Poulard30 , J. Poveda30 , V. Pozdnyakov65 , P. Pralavorio85 , A. Pranko15 ,S. Prasad30 , S. Prell64 , D. Price84 , L.E. Price6 , M. Primavera73a , S. Prince87 , M. Proissl46 ,K. Prokofiev60c , F. Prokoshin32b , E. Protopapadaki136 , S. Protopopescu25 , J. Proudfoot6 ,M. Przybycien38a , E. Ptacek116 , D. Puddu134a,134b , E. Pueschel86 , D. Puldon148 , M. Purohit25,ae ,P. Puzo117 , J. Qian89 , G. Qin53 , Y. Qin84 , A. Quadt54 , D.R. Quarrie15 , W.B. Quayle164a,164b ,M. Queitsch-Maitland84 , D. Quilty53 , S. Raddum119 , V. Radeka25 , V. Radescu42 , S.K. Radhakrishnan148 ,P. Radloff116 , P. Rados88 , F. Ragusa91a,91b , G. Rahal178 , S. Rajagopalan25 , M. Rammensee30 ,C. Rangel-Smith166 , F. Rauscher100 , S. Rave83 , T. Ravenscroft53 , M. Raymond30 , A.L. Read119 ,N.P. Readioff74 , D.M. Rebuzzi121a,121b , A. Redelbach174 , G. Redlinger25 , R. Reece137 , K. Reeves41 ,L. Rehnisch16 , H. Reisin27 , M. Relich163 , C. Rembser30 , H. Ren33a , A. Renaud117 , M. Rescigno132a ,76

S. Resconi91a , O.L. Rezanova109,c , P. Reznicek129 , R. Rezvani95 , R. Richter101 , S. Richter78 ,E. Richter-Was38b , O. Ricken21 , M. Ridel80 , P. Rieck16 , C.J. Riegel175 , J. Rieger54 , M. Rijssenbeek148 ,A. Rimoldi121a,121b , L. Rinaldi20a , B. Ristić49 , E. Ritsch62 , I. Riu12 , F. Rizatdinova114 , E. Rizvi76 ,S.H. Robertson87,k , A. Robichaud-Veronneau87 , D. Robinson28 , J.E.M. Robinson84 , A. Robson53 ,C. Roda124a,124b , S. Roe30 , O. Røhne119 , S. Rolli161 , A. Romaniouk98 , M. Romano20a,20b ,S.M. Romano Saez34 , E. Romero Adam167 , N. Rompotis138 , M. Ronzani48 , L. Roos80 , E. Ros167 ,S. Rosati132a , K. Rosbach48 , P. Rose137 , P.L. Rosendahl14 , O. Rosenthal141 , V. Rossetti146a,146b ,E. Rossi104a,104b , L.P. Rossi50a , R. Rosten138 , M. Rotaru26a , I. Roth172 , J. Rothberg138 , D. Rousseau117 ,C.R. Royon136 , A. Rozanov85 , Y. Rozen152 , X. Ruan145c , F. Rubbo143 , I. Rubinskiy42 , V.I. Rud99 ,C. Rudolph44 , M.S. Rudolph158 , F. Rühr48 , A. Ruiz-Martinez30 , Z. Rurikova48 , N.A. Rusakovich65 ,A. Ruschke100 , H.L. Russell138 , J.P. Rutherfoord7 , N. Ruthmann48 , Y.F. Ryabov123 , M. Rybar165 ,G. Rybkin117 , N.C. Ryder120 , A.F. Saavedra150 , G. Sabato107 , S. Sacerdoti27 , A. Saddique3 ,H.F-W. Sadrozinski137 , R. Sadykov65 , F. Safai Tehrani132a , M. Saimpert136 , H. Sakamoto155 ,Y. Sakurai171 , G. Salamanna134a,134b , A. Salamon133a , M. Saleem113 , D. Salek107 ,P.H. Sales De Bruin138 , D. Salihagic101 , A. Salnikov143 , J. Salt167 , D. Salvatore37a,37b , F. Salvatore149 ,A. Salvucci106 , A. Salzburger30 , D. Sampsonidis154 , A. Sanchez104a,104b , J. Sánchez167 ,V. Sanchez Martinez167 , H. Sandaker119 , R.L. Sandbach76 , H.G. Sander83 , M.P. Sanders100 ,M. Sandhoff175 , C. Sandoval162 , R. Sandstroem101 , D.P.C. Sankey131 , M. Sannino50a,50b , A. Sansoni47 ,C. Santoni34 , R. Santonico133a,133b , H. Santos126a , I. Santoyo Castillo149 , K. Sapp125 , A. Sapronov65 ,J.G. Saraiva126a,126d , B. Sarrazin21 , O. Sasaki66 , Y. Sasaki155 , K. Sato160 , G. Sauvage5,∗ , E. Sauvan5 ,G. Savage77 , P. Savard158,d , C. Sawyer120 , L. Sawyer79,n , J. Saxon31 , C. Sbarra20a , A. Sbrizzi20a,20b ,T. Scanlon78 , D.A. Scannicchio163 , M. Scarcella150 , V. Scarfone37a,37b , J. Schaarschmidt172 ,P. Schacht101 , D. Schaefer30 , R. Schaefer42 , J. Schaeffer83 , S. Schaepe21 , S. Schaetzel58b , U. Schäfer83 ,A.C. Schaffer117 , D. Schaile100 , R.D. Schamberger148 , V. Scharf58a , V.A. Schegelsky123 , D. Scheirich129 ,M. Schernau163 , C. Schiavi50a,50b , C. Schillo48 , M. Schioppa37a,37b , S. Schlenker30 , E. Schmidt48 ,K. Schmieden30 , C. Schmitt83 , S. Schmitt58b , S. Schmitt42 , B. Schneider159a , Y.J. Schnellbach74 ,U. Schnoor44 , L. Schoeffel136 , A. Schoening58b , B.D. Schoenrock90 , E. Schopf21 ,A.L.S. Schorlemmer54 , M. Schott83 , D. Schouten159a , J. Schovancova8 , S. Schramm158 , M. Schreyer174 ,C. Schroeder83 , N. Schuh83 , M.J. Schultens21 , H.-C. Schultz-Coulon58a , H. Schulz16 , M. Schumacher48 ,B.A. Schumm137 , Ph. Schune136 , C. Schwanenberger84 , A. Schwartzman143 , T.A. Schwarz89 ,Ph. Schwegler101 , H. Schweiger84 , Ph. Schwemling136 , R. Schwienhorst90 , J. Schwindling136 ,T. Schwindt21 , M. Schwoerer5 , F.G. Sciacca17 , E. Scifo117 , G. Sciolla23 , F. Scuri124a,124b , F. Scutti21 ,J. Searcy89 , G. Sedov42 , E. Sedykh123 , P. Seema21 , S.C. Seidel105 , A. Seiden137 , F. Seifert128 ,J.M. Seixas24a , G. Sekhniaidze104a , K. Sekhon89 , S.J. Sekula40 , K.E. Selbach46 , D.M. Seliverstov123,∗ ,N. Semprini-Cesari20a,20b , C. Serfon30 , L. Serin117 , L. Serkin164a,164b , T. Serre85 , M. Sessa134a,134b ,R. Seuster159a , H. Severini113 , T. Sfiligoj75 , F. Sforza101 , A. Sfyrla30 , E. Shabalina54 , M. Shamim116 ,L.Y. Shan33a , R. Shang165 , J.T. Shank22 , M. Shapiro15 , P.B. Shatalov97 , K. Shaw164a,164b , S.M. Shaw84 ,A. Shcherbakova146a,146b , C.Y. Shehu149 , P. Sherwood78 , L. Shi151,a f , S. Shimizu67 , C.O. Shimmin163 ,M. Shimojima102 , M. Shiyakova65 , A. Shmeleva96 , D. Shoaleh Saadi95 , M.J. Shochet31 , S. Shojaii91a,91b ,S. Shrestha111 , E. Shulga98 , M.A. Shupe7 , S. Shushkevich42 , P. Sicho127 , O. Sidiropoulou174 ,D. Sidorov114 , A. Sidoti20a,20b , F. Siegert44 , Dj. Sijacki13 , J. Silva126a,126d , Y. Silver153 ,S.B. Silverstein146a , V. Simak128 , O. Simard5 , Lj. Simic13 , S. Simion117 , E. Simioni83 , B. Simmons78 ,D. Simon34 , R. Simoniello91a,91b , P. Sinervo158 , N.B. Sinev116 , G. Siragusa174 , A.N. Sisakyan65,∗ ,S.Yu. Sivoklokov99 , J. Sjölin146a,146b , T.B. Sjursen14 , M.B. Skinner72 , H.P. Skottowe57 , P. Skubic113 ,M. Slater18 , T. Slavicek128 , M. Slawinska107 , K. Sliwa161 , V. Smakhtin172 , B.H. Smart46 , L. Smestad14 ,S.Yu. Smirnov98 , Y. Smirnov98 , L.N. Smirnova99,ag , O. Smirnova81 , M.N.K. Smith35 , R.W. Smith35 ,M. Smizanska72 , K. Smolek128 , A.A. Snesarev96 , G. Snidero76 , S. Snyder25 , R. Sobie169,k , F. Socher44 ,77

A. Soffer153 , D.A. Soh151,a f , C.A. Solans30 , M. Solar128 , J. Solc128 , E.Yu. Soldatov98 , U. Soldevila167 ,A.A. Solodkov130 , A. Soloshenko65 , O.V. Solovyanov130 , V. Solovyev123 , P. Sommer48 , H.Y. Song33b ,N. Soni1 , A. Sood15 , A. Sopczak128 , B. Sopko128 , V. Sopko128 , V. Sorin12 , D. Sosa58b , M. Sosebee8 ,C.L. Sotiropoulou124a,124b , R. Soualah164a,164c , P. Soueid95 , A.M. Soukharev109,c , D. South42 ,B.C. Sowden77 , S. Spagnolo73a,73b , M. Spalla124a,124b , F. Spanò77 , W.R. Spearman57 , F. Spettel101 ,R. Spighi20a , G. Spigo30 , L.A. Spiller88 , M. Spousta129 , T. Spreitzer158 , R.D. St. Denis53,∗ , S. Staerz44 ,J. Stahlman122 , R. Stamen58a , S. Stamm16 , E. Stanecka39 , C. Stanescu134a , M. Stanescu-Bellu42 ,M.M. Stanitzki42 , S. Stapnes119 , E.A. Starchenko130 , J. Stark55 , P. Staroba127 , P. Starovoitov42 ,R. Staszewski39 , P. Stavina144a,∗ , P. Steinberg25 , B. Stelzer142 , H.J. Stelzer30 , O. Stelzer-Chilton159a ,H. Stenzel52 , S. Stern101 , G.A. Stewart53 , J.A. Stillings21 , M.C. Stockton87 , M. Stoebe87 , G. Stoicea26a ,P. Stolte54 , S. Stonjek101 , A.R. Stradling8 , A. Straessner44 , M.E. Stramaglia17 , J. Strandberg147 ,S. Strandberg146a,146b , A. Strandlie119 , E. Strauss143 , M. Strauss113 , P. Strizenec144b , R. Ströhmer174 ,D.M. Strom116 , R. Stroynowski40 , A. Strubig106 , S.A. Stucci17 , B. Stugu14 , N.A. Styles42 , D. Su143 ,J. Su125 , R. Subramaniam79 , A. Succurro12 , Y. Sugaya118 , C. Suhr108 , M. Suk128 , V.V. Sulin96 ,S. Sultansoy4d , T. Sumida68 , S. Sun57 , X. Sun33a , J.E. Sundermann48 , K. Suruliz149 , G. Susinno37a,37b ,M.R. Sutton149 , S. Suzuki66 , Y. Suzuki66 , M. Svatos127 , S. Swedish168 , M. Swiatlowski143 , I. Sykora144a ,T. Sykora129 , D. Ta90 , C. Taccini134a,134b , K. Tackmann42 , J. Taenzer158 , A. Taffard163 , R. Tafirout159a ,N. Taiblum153 , H. Takai25 , R. Takashima69 , H. Takeda67 , T. Takeshita140 , Y. Takubo66 , M. Talby85 ,A.A. Talyshev109,c , J.Y.C. Tam174 , K.G. Tan88 , J. Tanaka155 , R. Tanaka117 , S. Tanaka66 ,B.B. Tannenwald111 , N. Tannoury21 , S. Tapprogge83 , S. Tarem152 , F. Tarrade29 , G.F. Tartarelli91a ,P. Tas129 , M. Tasevsky127 , T. Tashiro68 , E. Tassi37a,37b , A. Tavares Delgado126a,126b , Y. Tayalati135d ,F.E. Taylor94 , G.N. Taylor88 , W. Taylor159b , F.A. Teischinger30 , M. Teixeira Dias Castanheira76 ,P. Teixeira-Dias77 , K.K. Temming48 , H. Ten Kate30 , P.K. Teng151 , J.J. Teoh118 , F. Tepel175 , S. Terada66 ,K. Terashi155 , J. Terron82 , S. Terzo101 , M. Testa47 , R.J. Teuscher158,k , J. Therhaag21 ,T. Theveneaux-Pelzer34 , J.P. Thomas18 , J. Thomas-Wilsker77 , E.N. Thompson35 , P.D. Thompson18 ,R.J. Thompson84 , A.S. Thompson53 , L.A. Thomsen176 , E. Thomson122 , M. Thomson28 , R.P. Thun89,∗ ,M.J. Tibbetts15 , R.E. Ticse Torres85 , V.O. Tikhomirov96,ah , Yu.A. Tikhonov109,c , S. Timoshenko98 ,E. Tiouchichine85 , P. Tipton176 , S. Tisserant85 , T. Todorov5,∗ , S. Todorova-Nova129 , J. Tojo70 ,S. Tokár144a , K. Tokushuku66 , K. Tollefson90 , E. Tolley57 , L. Tomlinson84 , M. Tomoto103 ,L. Tompkins143,ai , K. Toms105 , E. Torrence116 , H. Torres142 , E. Torró Pastor167 , J. Toth85,a j ,F. Touchard85 , D.R. Tovey139 , T. Trefzger174 , L. Tremblet30 , A. Tricoli30 , I.M. Trigger159a ,S. Trincaz-Duvoid80 , M.F. Tripiana12 , W. Trischuk158 , B. Trocmé55 , C. Troncon91a ,M. Trottier-McDonald15 , M. Trovatelli134a,134b , P. True90 , L. Truong164a,164c , M. Trzebinski39 ,A. Trzupek39 , C. Tsarouchas30 , J.C-L. Tseng120 , P.V. Tsiareshka92 , D. Tsionou154 , G. Tsipolitis10 ,N. Tsirintanis9 , S. Tsiskaridze12 , V. Tsiskaridze48 , E.G. Tskhadadze51a , I.I. Tsukerman97 , V. Tsulaia15 ,S. Tsuno66 , D. Tsybychev148 , A. Tudorache26a , V. Tudorache26a , A.N. Tuna122 , S.A. Tupputi20a,20b ,S. Turchikhin99,ag , D. Turecek128 , R. Turra91a,91b , A.J. Turvey40 , P.M. Tuts35 , A. Tykhonov49 ,M. Tylmad146a,146b , M. Tyndel131 , I. Ueda155 , R. Ueno29 , M. Ughetto146a,146b , M. Ugland14 ,M. Uhlenbrock21 , F. Ukegawa160 , G. Unal30 , A. Undrus25 , G. Unel163 , F.C. Ungaro48 , Y. Unno66 ,C. Unverdorben100 , J. Urban144b , P. Urquijo88 , P. Urrejola83 , G. Usai8 , A. Usanova62 , L. Vacavant85 ,V. Vacek128 , B. Vachon87 , C. Valderanis83 , N. Valencic107 , S. Valentinetti20a,20b , A. Valero167 ,L. Valery12 , S. Valkar129 , E. Valladolid Gallego167 , S. Vallecorsa49 , J.A. Valls Ferrer167 ,W. Van Den Wollenberg107 , P.C. Van Der Deijl107 , R. van der Geer107 , H. van der Graaf107 ,R. Van Der Leeuw107 , N. van Eldik152 , P. van Gemmeren6 , J. Van Nieuwkoop142 , I. van Vulpen107 ,M.C. van Woerden30 , M. Vanadia132a,132b , W. Vandelli30 , R. Vanguri122 , A. Vaniachine6 , F. Vannucci80 ,G. Vardanyan177 , R. Vari132a , E.W. Varnes7 , T. Varol40 , D. Varouchas80 , A. Vartapetian8 , K.E. Varvell150 ,F. Vazeille34 , T. Vazquez Schroeder87 , J. Veatch7 , L.M. Veloce158 , F. Veloso126a,126c , T. Velz21 ,78

S. Veneziano132a , A. Ventura73a,73b , D. Ventura86 , M. Venturi169 , N. Venturi158 , A. Venturini23 ,V. Vercesi121a , M. Verducci132a,132b , W. Verkerke107 , J.C. Vermeulen107 , A. Vest44 , M.C. Vetterli142,d ,O. Viazlo81 , I. Vichou165 , T. Vickey139 , O.E. Vickey Boeriu139 , G.H.A. Viehhauser120 , S. Viel15 ,R. Vigne30 , M. Villa20a,20b , M. Villaplana Perez91a,91b , E. Vilucchi47 , M.G. Vincter29 , V.B. Vinogradov65 ,I. Vivarelli149 , F. Vives Vaque3 , S. Vlachos10 , D. Vladoiu100 , M. Vlasak128 , M. Vogel32a , P. Vokac128 ,G. Volpi124a,124b , M. Volpi88 , H. von der Schmitt101 , H. von Radziewski48 , E. von Toerne21 ,V. Vorobel129 , K. Vorobev98 , M. Vos167 , R. Voss30 , J.H. Vossebeld74 , N. Vranjes13 ,M. Vranjes Milosavljevic13 , V. Vrba127 , M. Vreeswijk107 , R. Vuillermet30 , I. Vukotic31 , Z. Vykydal128 ,P. Wagner21 , W. Wagner175 , H. Wahlberg71 , S. Wahrmund44 , J. Wakabayashi103 , J. Walder72 ,R. Walker100 , W. Walkowiak141 , C. Wang33c , F. Wang173 , H. Wang15 , H. Wang40 , J. Wang42 , J. Wang33a ,K. Wang87 , R. Wang6 , S.M. Wang151 , T. Wang21 , X. Wang176 , C. Wanotayaroj116 , A. Warburton87 ,C.P. Ward28 , D.R. Wardrope78 , M. Warsinsky48 , A. Washbrook46 , C. Wasicki42 , P.M. Watkins18 ,A.T. Watson18 , I.J. Watson150 , M.F. Watson18 , G. Watts138 , S. Watts84 , B.M. Waugh78 , S. Webb84 ,M.S. Weber17 , S.W. Weber174 , J.S. Webster31 , A.R. Weidberg120 , B. Weinert61 , J. Weingarten54 ,C. Weiser48 , H. Weits107 , P.S. Wells30 , T. Wenaus25 , T. Wengler30 , S. Wenig30 , N. Wermes21 ,M. Werner48 , P. Werner30 , M. Wessels58a , J. Wetter161 , K. Whalen29 , A.M. Wharton72 , A. White8 ,M.J. White1 , R. White32b , S. White124a,124b , D. Whiteson163 , F.J. Wickens131 , W. Wiedenmann173 ,M. Wielers131 , P. Wienemann21 , C. Wiglesworth36 , L.A.M. Wiik-Fuchs21 , A. Wildauer101 ,H.G. Wilkens30 , H.H. Williams122 , S. Williams107 , C. Willis90 , S. Willocq86 , A. Wilson89 ,J.A. Wilson18 , I. Wingerter-Seez5 , F. Winklmeier116 , B.T. Winter21 , M. Wittgen143 , J. Wittkowski100 ,S.J. Wollstadt83 , M.W. Wolter39 , H. Wolters126a,126c , B.K. Wosiek39 , J. Wotschack30 , M.J. Woudstra84 ,K.W. Wozniak39 , M. Wu55 , M. Wu31 , S.L. Wu173 , X. Wu49 , Y. Wu89 , T.R. Wyatt84 , B.M. Wynne46 ,S. Xella36 , D. Xu33a , L. Xu33b,ak , B. Yabsley150 , S. Yacoob145b,al , R. Yakabe67 , M. Yamada66 ,Y. Yamaguchi118 , A. Yamamoto66 , S. Yamamoto155 , T. Yamanaka155 , K. Yamauchi103 , Y. Yamazaki67 ,Z. Yan22 , H. Yang33e , H. Yang173 , Y. Yang151 , L. Yao33a , W-M. Yao15 , Y. Yasu66 , E. Yatsenko5 ,K.H. Yau Wong21 , J. Ye40 , S. Ye25 , I. Yeletskikh65 , A.L. Yen57 , E. Yildirim42 , K. Yorita171 , R. Yoshida6 ,K. Yoshihara122 , C. Young143 , C.J.S. Young30 , S. Youssef22 , D.R. Yu15 , J. Yu8 , J.M. Yu89 , J. Yu114 ,L. Yuan67 , A. Yurkewicz108 , I. Yusuff28,am , B. Zabinski39 , R. Zaidan63 , A.M. Zaitsev130,ab ,J. Zalieckas14 , A. Zaman148 , S. Zambito57 , L. Zanello132a,132b , D. Zanzi88 , C. Zeitnitz175 , M. Zeman128 ,A. Zemla38a , K. Zengel23 , O. Zenin130 , T. Ženiš144a , D. Zerwas117 , D. Zhang89 , F. Zhang173 , J. Zhang6 ,L. Zhang48 , R. Zhang33b , X. Zhang33d , Z. Zhang117 , X. Zhao40 , Y. Zhao33d,117 , Z. Zhao33b ,A. Zhemchugov65 , J. Zhong120 , B. Zhou89 , C. Zhou45 , L. Zhou35 , L. Zhou40 , N. Zhou163 , C.G. Zhu33d ,H. Zhu33a , J. Zhu89 , Y. Zhu33b , X. Zhuang33a , K. Zhukov96 , A. Zibell174 , D. Zieminska61 , N.I. Zimine65 ,C. Zimmermann83 , S. Zimmermann48 , Z. Zinonos54 , M. Zinser83 , M. Ziolkowski141 , L. Živković13 ,G. Zobernig173 , A. Zoccoli20a,20b , M. zur Nedden16 , G. Zurzolo104a,104b , L. Zwalinski30 .
1 Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
2 Physics Department, SUNY Albany, Albany NY, United States of America
3 Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, Canada
4 (a) Department of Physics, Ankara University, Ankara; (c) Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul; (d)Division of Physics, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey
5 LAPP, CNRS/IN2P3 and Université Savoie Mont Blanc, Annecy-le-Vieux, France
6 High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne IL, United States of America
7 Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, United States of America
8 Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington TX, United States of America
9 Physics Department, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
10 Physics Department, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Greece79

11 Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan
12 Institut de Física d’Altes Energies and Departament de Física de la Universitat Autònoma deBarcelona, Barcelona, Spain
13 Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
14 Department for Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
15 Physics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley CA,
United States of America
16 Department of Physics, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
17 Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics and Laboratory for High Energy Physics, Universityof Bern, Bern, Switzerland
18 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
19 (a) Department of Physics, Bogazici University, Istanbul; (b) Department of Physics, Dogus University,
Istanbul; (c) Department of Physics Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
20 (a) INFN Sezione di Bologna; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Bologna,
Bologna, Italy
21 Physikalisches Institut, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
22 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston MA, United States of America
23 Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham MA, United States of America
24 (a) Universidade Federal do Rio De Janeiro COPPE/EE/IF, Rio de Janeiro; (b) Electrical Circuits
Department, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora; (c) Federal University of Sao Joaodel Rei (UFSJ), Sao Joao del Rei; (d) Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
25 Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton NY, United States of America
26 (a) National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest; (b) National Institute for
Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies, Physics Department, Cluj Napoca;(c) University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest; (d) West University in Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania
27 Departamento de Física, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
28 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
29 Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa ON, Canada
30 CERN, Geneva, Switzerland
31 Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago IL, United States of America
32 (a) Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago; (b) Departamento deFísica, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile
33 (a) Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing; (b) Department ofModern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Anhui; (c) Department of Physics,
Nanjing University, Jiangsu; (d) School of Physics, Shandong University, Shandong; (e) Department of
Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, Shanghai; ( f ) Physics Department, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
34 Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, Clermont Université and Université Blaise Pascal and
CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont-Ferrand, France
35 Nevis Laboratory, Columbia University, Irvington NY, United States of America
36 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Kobenhavn, Denmark
37 (a) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica,
Università della Calabria, Rende, Italy
38 (a) AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science,
Krakow; (b) Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
39 Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
40 Physics Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX, United States of America

80

41 Physics Department, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX, United States of America
42 DESY, Hamburg and Zeuthen, Germany
43 Institut für Experimentelle Physik IV, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
44 Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
45 Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham NC, United States of America
46 SUPA - School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
47 INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
48 Fakultät für Mathematik und Physik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany
49 Section de Physique, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
50 (a) INFN Sezione di Genova; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Genova, Genova, Italy
51 (a) E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi; (b) HighEnergy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia
52 II Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Giessen, Germany
53 SUPA - School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
54 II Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany
55 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3,
Grenoble, France
56 Department of Physics, Hampton University, Hampton VA, United States of America
57 Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, United States ofAmerica
58 (a) Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; (b)Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg; (c) ZITI Institut fürtechnische Informatik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
59 Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima, Japan
60 (a) Department of Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong; (b)Department of Physics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; (c) Department of Physics, The
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
61 Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington IN, United States of America
62 Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, Austria
63 University of Iowa, Iowa City IA, United States of America
64 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames IA, United States of America
65 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR Dubna, Dubna, Russia
66 KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan
67 Graduate School of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan
68 Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
69 Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto, Japan70 Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
71 Instituto de Física La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET, La Plata, Argentina
72 Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
73 (a) INFN Sezione di Lecce; (b) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università del Salento, Lecce,
Italy
74 Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
75 Department of Physics, Jožef Stefan Institute and University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
76 School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
77 Department of Physics, Royal Holloway University of London, Surrey, United Kingdom
78 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, United Kingdom
79 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston LA, United States of America

81

80 Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, UPMC and Université Paris-Diderot and

CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
81 Fysiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund, Sweden
82 Departamento de Fisica Teorica C-15, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
83 Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
84 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
85 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
86 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA, United States of America
87 Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal QC, Canada
88 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
89 Department of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, United States of America
90 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI, United States ofAmerica
91 (a) INFN Sezione di Milano; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano, Milano, Italy
92 B.I. Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Republic of
Belarus
93 National Scientific and Educational Centre for Particle and High Energy Physics, Minsk, Republic of
Belarus94 Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA, United States ofAmerica95 Group of Particle Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal QC, Canada
96 P.N. Lebedev Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
97 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
98 National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia
99 D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia100 Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
101 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), München, Germany
102 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan
103 Graduate School of Science and Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan
104 (a) INFN Sezione di Napoli; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Napoli, Italy
105 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM, United Statesof America
106 Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nikhef,
Nijmegen, Netherlands
107 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands
108 Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb IL, United States of America
109 Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia
110 Department of Physics, New York University, New York NY, United States of America
111 Ohio State University, Columbus OH, United States of America
112 Faculty of Science, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan
113 Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK,
United States of America
114 Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK, United States of America
115 Palacký University, RCPTM, Olomouc, Czech Republic
116 Center for High Energy Physics, University of Oregon, Eugene OR, United States of America82

117 LAL, Université Paris-Sud and CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
118 Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
119 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
120 Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom
121 (a) INFN Sezione di Pavia; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy
122 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, United States of America
123 National Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute" B.P.Konstantinov Petersburg Nuclear Physics

Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
124 (a) INFN Sezione di Pisa; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
125 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, United States ofAmerica
126 (a) Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas - LIP, Lisboa; (b) Faculdade deCiências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (c) Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra;(d) Centro de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa; (e) Departamento de Fisica,
Universidade do Minho, Braga; ( f ) Departamento de Fisica Teorica y del Cosmos and CAFPE,
Universidad de Granada, Granada (Spain); (g) Dep Fisica and CEFITEC of Faculdade de Ciencias e
Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal
127 Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic
128 Czech Technical University in Prague, Praha, Czech Republic
129 Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University in Prague, Praha, Czech Republic
130 State Research Center Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia
131 Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
132 (a) INFN Sezione di Roma; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy
133 (a) INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata; (b) Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma Tor Vergata,
Roma, Italy
134 (a) INFN Sezione di Roma Tre; (b) Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Roma Tre, Roma,
Italy
135 (a) Faculté des Sciences Ain Chock, Réseau Universitaire de Physique des Hautes Energies Université Hassan II, Casablanca; (b) Centre National de l’Energie des Sciences Techniques Nucleaires,
Rabat; (c) Faculté des Sciences Semlalia, Université Cadi Ayyad, LPHEA-Marrakech; (d) Faculté desSciences, Université Mohamed Premier and LPTPM, Oujda; (e) Faculté des sciences, Université
Mohammed V-Agdal, Rabat, Morocco
136 DSM/IRFU (Institut de Recherches sur les Lois Fondamentales de l’Univers), CEA Saclay(Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives), Gif-sur-Yvette, France
137 Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, UnitedStates of America
138 Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle WA, United States of America
139 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
140 Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan141 Fachbereich Physik, Universität Siegen, Siegen, Germany
142 Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, Canada
143 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford CA, United States of America
144 (a) Faculty of Mathematics, Physics & Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava; (b) Departmentof Subnuclear Physics, Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice,Slovak Republic
145 (a) Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town; (b) Department of Physics,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg; (c) School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand,

83

Johannesburg, South Africa
146 (a) Department of Physics, Stockholm University; (b) The Oskar Klein Centre, Stockholm, Sweden
147 Physics Department, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
148 Departments of Physics & Astronomy and Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook NY,
United States of America
149 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
150 School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
151 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
152 Department of Physics, Technion: Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
153 Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv,
Israel154 Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece
155 International Center for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, The University ofTokyo, Tokyo, Japan
156 Graduate School of Science and Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan
157 Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
158 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada
159 (a) TRIUMF, Vancouver BC; (b) Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto
ON, Canada
160 Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
161 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford MA, United States of America
162 Centro de Investigaciones, Universidad Antonio Narino, Bogota, Colombia
163 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine CA, United States ofAmerica
164 (a) INFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine, Sezione di Trieste, Udine; (b) ICTP, Trieste; (c) Dipartimento di
Chimica, Fisica e Ambiente, Università di Udine, Udine, Italy
165 Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana IL, United States of America
166 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden
167 Instituto de Física Corpuscular (IFIC) and Departamento de Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear
and Departamento de Ingeniería Electrónica and Instituto de Microelectrónica de Barcelona(IMB-CNM), University of Valencia and CSIC, Valencia, Spain
168 Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, Canada
169 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria BC, Canada
170 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
171 Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan
172 Department of Particle Physics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
173 Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison WI, United States of America
174 Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität, Würzburg, Germany
175 Fachbereich C Physik, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
176 Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven CT, United States of America
177 Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia
178 Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3),
Villeurbanne, Francea Also at Department of Physics, King’s College London, London, United Kingdomb Also at Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijanc Also at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
d Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver BC, Canada84

e Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Fresno CA, United States of Americaf Also at Department of Physics, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerlandg Also at Departamento de Fisica e Astronomia, Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade do Porto, Portugalh Also at Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
i Also at CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, Francej Also at Universita di Napoli Parthenope, Napoli, Italyk Also at Institute of Particle Physics (IPP), Canadal Also at Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdomm Also at Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia
n Also at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston LA, United States of Americao Also at Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats, ICREA, Barcelona, Spain
p Also at Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
q Also at Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX, United States ofAmericar Also at Institute of Theoretical Physics, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgias Also at CERN, Geneva, Switzerlandt Also at Georgian Technical University (GTU),Tbilisi, Georgiau Also at Ochadai Academic Production, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japanv Also at Manhattan College, New York NY, United States of America
w Also at Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greecex Also at Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwany Also at LAL, Université Paris-Sud and CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, Francez Also at Academia Sinica Grid Computing, Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
aa Also at School of Physics, Shandong University, Shandong, China
ab Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University, Dolgoprudny, Russia
ac Also at Section de Physique, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
ad Also at International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA), Trieste, Italyae Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of South Carolina, Columbia SC, UnitedStates of Americaa f Also at School of Physics and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
ag Also at Faculty of Physics, M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
ah Also at National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia
ai Also at Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford CA, United States of Americaa j Also at Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest,
Hungary
ak Also at Department of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, United States of America
al Also at Discipline of Physics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
am Also at University of Malaya, Department of Physics, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia∗ Deceased85