Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ; Contact us: CMS Publications Committee

CMS-HIG-19-006 ; CERN-EP-2020-164

Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons

CMS Collaboration

9 September 2020

JHEP 01 (2021) 148

Abstract: Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons is presented. This result combines searches in four exclusive categories targeting the production of the Higgs boson via gluon fusion, via vector boson fusion, in association with a vector boson, and in association with a top quark-antiquark pair. The analysis is performed using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$ , recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. An excess of events over the background expectation is observed in data with a significance of 3.0 standard deviations, where the expectation for the standard model (SM) Higgs boson with mass of 125.38 GeV is 2.5. The combination of this result with that from data recorded at $\sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV, corresponding to integrated luminosities of 5.1 and 19.7 fb$^{-1}$, respectively, increases both the expected and observed significances by 1%. The measured signal strength, relative to the SM prediction, is 1.19$^{+0.40}_{-0.39}$ (stat)$^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ (syst). This result constitutes the first evidence for the decay of the Higgs boson to second generation fermions and is the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson coupling to muons reported to date.

Links: e-print arXiv:2009.04363 [hep-ex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ;

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SR region for data collected in 2016 (first row, left), 2017 (first row, right), and 2018 (second row) compared to the post-fit background estimate for the contributing SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. In the middle panel, the ratio between data and the pre-fit background prediction is shown. The grey band indicates the total pre-fit uncertainty obtained from the systematic sources previously described. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The grey band indicates the total background uncertainty after performing the fit. The blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel) indicate the total signal extracted from the fit with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SR region for data collected in 2016 compared to the post-fit background estimate for the contributing SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. In the middle panel, the ratio between data and the pre-fit background prediction is shown. The grey band indicates the total pre-fit uncertainty obtained from the systematic sources previously described. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The grey band indicates the total background uncertainty after performing the fit. The blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel) indicate the total signal extracted from the fit with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SR region for data collected in 2017 compared to the post-fit background estimate for the contributing SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. In the middle panel, the ratio between data and the pre-fit background prediction is shown. The grey band indicates the total pre-fit uncertainty obtained from the systematic sources previously described. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The grey band indicates the total background uncertainty after performing the fit. The blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel) indicate the total signal extracted from the fit with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SR region for data collected in 2018 compared to the post-fit background estimate for the contributing SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. In the middle panel, the ratio between data and the pre-fit background prediction is shown. The grey band indicates the total pre-fit uncertainty obtained from the systematic sources previously described. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The grey band indicates the total background uncertainty after performing the fit. The blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel) indicate the total signal extracted from the fit with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 2: The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2016 (first row, left), 2017 (first row, right), and 2018 (second row) in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The description of the three panels is the same as in Fig. 1.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2016 in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The description of the three panels is the same as in Fig. 1.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2017 in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The description of the three panels is the same as in Fig. 1.
png pdf	Figure 2-c: The observed DNN output distribution for data collected in 2018 in the VBF-SB region compared to the post-fit background estimate from SM processes. The predicted backgrounds are obtained from a S+B fit performed across analysis regions and years. The description of the three panels is the same as in Fig. 1.
png pdf	Figure 3: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SB (left) and VBF-SR (right) regions for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SB region for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: The observed DNN output distribution in the VBF-SR region for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Figure 4: Left: the observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the ggH category, with $m_{\mu \mu}$ between 110-150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions for ggH, VBF, and other signal processes are overlaid. The grey vertical bands indicate the range between the minimum and maximum BDT output values used to define the boundaries for the optimized event categories for different data-taking periods. In the lower panel, the ratio between data and the expected background is shown. The grey band indicates the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples. The azure band corresponds to the sum in quadrature between the statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties, while the orange band additionally includes the theoretical uncertainties affecting the background prediction. Right: the signal shape model for the simulated ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ sample with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} =$ 125 GeV in the best (red) and the worst (blue) resolution categories.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: The observed BDT output distribution compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Dimuon events passing the event selection requirements of the ggH category, with $m_{\mu \mu}$ between 110-150 GeV, are considered. The expected distributions for ggH, VBF, and other signal processes are overlaid. The grey vertical bands indicate the range between the minimum and maximum BDT output values used to define the boundaries for the optimized event categories for different data-taking periods. In the lower panel, the ratio between data and the expected background is shown. The grey band indicates the uncertainty due to the limited size of the simulated samples. The azure band corresponds to the sum in quadrature between the statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties, while the orange band additionally includes the theoretical uncertainties affecting the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: The signal shape model for the simulated ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ sample with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} =$ 125 GeV in the best (red) and the worst (blue) resolution categories.
png pdf	Figure 5: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various ggH subcategories. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction and the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ggH-cat1 subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction and the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ggH-cat2 subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction and the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 5-c: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ggH-cat3 subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction and the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 5-d: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ggH-cat4 subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction and the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 5-e: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ggH-cat5 subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction and the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 6: The observed BDT output distribution in the ttH hadronic (left) and leptonic (right) categories compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Signal distributions expected from different production modes of the Higgs boson with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV are overlaid. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. The description of the ratio panels is the same as in Fig. 4.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: The observed BDT output distribution in the ttH hadronic category compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Signal distributions expected from different production modes of the Higgs boson with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV are overlaid. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. The description of the ratio panels is the same as in Fig. 4.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: The observed BDT output distribution in the ttH leptonic category compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Signal distributions expected from different production modes of the Higgs boson with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV are overlaid. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. The description of the ratio panels is the same as in Fig. 4.
png pdf	Figure 7: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various ttH hadronic and leptonic event subcategories. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ttHhad-cat1 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ttHhad-cat2 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ttHhad-cat3 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 7-d: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ttHlep-cat1 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 7-e: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the ttHlep-cat2 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 8: The observed BDT output distribution in the WH (left) and ZH (right) categories compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Signal distributions expected from different production modes of the Higgs boson with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV are overlaid. The description of the ratio panel is the same as in Fig. 4. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: The observed BDT output distribution in the WH category compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Signal distributions expected from different production modes of the Higgs boson with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV are overlaid. The description of the ratio panel is the same as in Fig. 4. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: The observed BDT output distribution in the ZH category compared to the prediction from the simulation of various SM background processes. Signal distributions expected from different production modes of the Higgs boson with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125 GeV are overlaid. The description of the ratio panel is the same as in Fig. 4. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories.
png pdf	Figure 9: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various WH and ZH event subcategories. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various WH-cat1 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various WH-cat2 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 9-c: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various WH-cat3 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 9-d: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various ZH-cat1 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 9-e: Comparison between the data and the total background extracted from a S+B fit performed across the various ZH-cat2 event subcategory. The one (green) and two (yellow) standard deviation bands include the uncertainties in the background component of the fit. The lower panel shows the residuals after the background subtraction, where the red line indicates the signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV extracted from the fit.
png pdf	Figure 10: Left: observed local $p$-values as a function of $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} $, extracted from the combined fit as well as from each individual production category, are shown. The solid markers indicate the mass points for which the observed $p$-values are computed. Right: the expected $p$-values are calculated using the background expectation obtained from the S+B fit and injecting a signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV and $\mu = $ 1.
png pdf	Figure 10-a: Observed local $p$-values as a function of $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} $, extracted from the combined fit as well as from each individual production category, are shown. The solid markers indicate the mass points for which the observed $p$-values are computed.
png pdf	Figure 10-b: The expected $p$-values are calculated using the background expectation obtained from the S+B fit and injecting a signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV and $\mu = $ 1.
png pdf	Figure 11: Left: signal strength modifiers measured for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV in each production category (black points) are compared to the result of the combined fit (solid red line) and the SM expectation (dashed grey line). Right: scan of the profiled likelihood ratio as a function of $\mu _{\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \mathrm{H},{\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{H}}$ and $\mu _{\mathrm {VBF},{\mathrm{VH}}}$ with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ and 2$\sigma $ uncertainty contours. The black cross indicates the best fit values $(\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \mathrm{H},{\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{H}},\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm {VBF},{\mathrm{VH}}})=$ (0.66,1.84), while the red circle represents the SM expectation.
png pdf	Figure 11-a: Signal strength modifiers measured for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV in each production category (black points) are compared to the result of the combined fit (solid red line) and the SM expectation (dashed grey line).
png pdf	Figure 11-b: Scan of the profiled likelihood ratio as a function of $\mu _{\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \mathrm{H},{\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{H}}$ and $\mu _{\mathrm {VBF},{\mathrm{VH}}}$ with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ and 2$\sigma $ uncertainty contours. The black cross indicates the best fit values $(\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \mathrm{H},{\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{H}},\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm {VBF},{\mathrm{VH}}})=$ (0.66,1.84), while the red circle represents the SM expectation.
png pdf	Figure 12: Left: the $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of VBF-SB and VBF-SR events. Each event is weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, calculated as a function of the mass-decorrelated DNN output. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue line and histogram, while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty from the background-only fit. Right: the $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of all event categories. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction, with the best fit SM ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV indicated by the red line.
png pdf	Figure 12-a: The $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of VBF-SB and VBF-SR events. Each event is weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, calculated as a function of the mass-decorrelated DNN output. The lower panel shows the residuals after subtracting the background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue line and histogram, while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty from the background-only fit.
png pdf	Figure 12-b : The $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of all event categories. The lower panel shows the residuals after background subtraction, with the best fit SM ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV indicated by the red line.
png pdf	Figure 13: Observed (solid black) and expected (dashed black) local $p$-values as a function of $ {m_{\mathrm{H}}} $, extracted from the combined fit performed on data recorded at $\sqrt {s}=$ 7, 8, and 13 TeV, are shown. The expected $p$-values are calculated using the background expectation obtained from the S+B fit and injecting a signal with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} =$ 125.38 GeV and $\mu =$ 1.
png pdf	Figure 14: Left: the observed profile likelihood ratio as a function of $\kappa _{\mu}$ for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV, obtained from a combined fit with Ref. [10] in the $\kappa $-framework. The best fit value for $\kappa _{\mu}$ is 1.07 and the corresponding observed 68% CL interval is 0.85 $ < \kappa _{\mu} < $ 1.29. Right: the best fit estimates for the reduced coupling modifiers extracted for fermions and weak bosons from the resolved $\kappa $-framework compared to their corresponding prediction from the SM. The error bars represent 68% CL intervals for the measured parameters. In the lower panel, the ratios of the measured coupling modifiers values to their SM predictions are shown.
png pdf	Figure 14-a: The observed profile likelihood ratio as a function of $\kappa _{\mu}$ for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV, obtained from a combined fit with Ref. [10] in the $\kappa $-framework. The best fit value for $\kappa _{\mu}$ is 1.07 and the corresponding observed 68% CL interval is 0.85 $ < \kappa _{\mu} < $ 1.29.
png pdf	Figure 14-b: The best fit estimates for the reduced coupling modifiers extracted for fermions and weak bosons from the resolved $\kappa $-framework compared to their corresponding prediction from the SM. The error bars represent 68% CL intervals for the measured parameters. In the lower panel, the ratios of the measured coupling modifiers values to their SM predictions are shown.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Summary of the kinematic selections used to define the VBF-SB and VBF-SR regions.
png pdf	Table 2: Event yields in each bin or in group of bins defined along the DNN output in the VBF-SR for various processes. The expected signal contribution for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV (S), produced via VBF and ggH modes and assuming SM cross sections and ${{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-})}}$, is shown. The background yields (B) and the corresponding uncertainties ($\Delta \mathrm {B}$) are obtained after performing a combined S+B fit across the VBF-SR and VBF-SB regions and each data-taking period. The observed event yields, S/(S+B) ratios and ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\mathrm {{B}}}}}$ ratios are also reported.
png pdf	Table 3: Summary of the kinematic selections used to define the ggH production category.
png pdf	Table 4: The total expected number of signal events with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV (S), the ratio of the expected contributions from different production modes to the total signal yield ("Other'' represents the sum of VH, ttH, and bbH contributions), the HWHM of the signal peak, the estimated number of background events (B) and the observation in data within HWHM, and the S/(S+B) and the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\mathrm {B}}}}$ ratios within HWHM, for each of the optimized ggH event categories.
png pdf	Table 5: Summary of the kinematic requirements used to define the ttH hadronic and leptonic production categories
png pdf	Table 6: The total expected number of signal events with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV (S), the ratio of the expected contributions from different production modes to the total signal yield ("Other'' represents the sum of tH, VBF, and bbH contributions), the HWHM of the signal peak, the functional form used for the background modelling, the estimated number of background events (B) and the observed number of events within HWHM, and the S/(S+B) and $\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\mathrm {B}}}$ ratios computed within the HWHM of the signal peak, for each of the optimized event categories defined along the ttH hadronic and leptonic BDT outputs.
png pdf	Table 7: Summary of the kinematic selection used to define the WH and ZH production categories.
png pdf	Table 8: The total expected number of signal events with ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV (S), the ratio of the expected contributions from different production modes to the total signal yield, the HWHM of the signal peak, the functional form used for the background modelling, the estimated number of background events (S) and the observed number of events within HWHM, and the S/(S+B) and the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\mathrm {B}}}}$ ratios computed within the HWHM of the signal peak for each of the optimized event categories defined along the WH and ZH BDT outputs.
png pdf	Table 9: Major sources of uncertainty in the measurement of the signal strength $\mu $ and their impact. The total post-fit uncertainty on $\mu $ is divided into the statistical and systematic components. The systematic component is further separated into three parts depending on the origin of the different sources of uncertainty: experimental, theoretical, and size of the simulated samples. The uncertainty due to the limited statistics of the simulated samples only affects the VBF category results.
png pdf	Table 10: Observed and expected significances for the incompatibility with the background-only hypothesis for ${m_{\mathrm{H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV and the corresponding 95% CL upper limits on $\mu $ (in the absence of ${{\mathrm{H} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ decays) for each production category, as well as for the 13 TeV and the 7+8+13 TeV combined fits.

Summary

Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons is presented. This result combines searches in four exclusive categories targeting the production of the Higgs boson via gluon fusion, via vector boson fusion, in association with a vector boson, and in association with a top quark-antiquark pair. The analysis is performed using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$, recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. An excess of events over the background expectation is observed in data with a significance of 3.0 standard deviations, where the expectation for the standard model (SM) Higgs boson with mass of 125.38 GeV is 2.5. The combination of this result with that from data recorded at $\sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV, corresponding to integrated luminosities of 5.1 and 19.7 fb$^{-1}$, respectively, increases both the expected and observed significances by 1%. The measured signal strength, relative to the SM prediction, is 1.19$^{+0.40}_{-0.39}$ (stat)$^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ (syst). This result constitutes the first evidence for the decay of the Higgs boson to second generation fermions and is the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson coupling to muons reported to date.

Additional Figures
png pdf	Additional Figure 1: Left: the shapes of the BDT discriminant in signal (blue) and background (red) events are obtained by summing the expectations from the various signal and background processes, respectively. The grey vertical boxes indicate the range of variation of the BDT boundaries for the optimized event categories defined in each data-taking period. In the lower panel, the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\mathrm {B}}}$ per category, calculated by integrating signal and background expected events inside the hwhm range around the signal peak, is reported. Right: the signal shape model for the simulated $ {{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}} $ sample with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} =$ 125 GeV for the weighted sum of all ggH event categories. Events are weighted per category according to the expected S/(S+B), computed within the hwhm range of the signal peak.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-a: The shapes of the BDT discriminant in signal (blue) and background (red) events are obtained by summing the expectations from the various signal and background processes, respectively. The grey vertical boxes indicate the range of variation of the BDT boundaries for the optimized event categories defined in each data-taking period. In the lower panel, the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\mathrm {B}}}$ per category, calculated by integrating signal and background expected events inside the hwhm range around the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-b: The signal shape model for the simulated $ {{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}} $ sample with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} =$ 125 GeV for the weighted sum of all ggH event categories. Events are weighted per category according to the expected S/(S+B), computed within the hwhm range of the signal peak.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2: Distribution of the WH (left) and ZH (right) BDT outputs in signal (blue) and background (red) simulated events. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. In the lower panel, the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\mathrm {B}}}$ per category, obtained by integrating signal and background expected events in the HWHM range around the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-a: Distribution of the WH BDT outputs in signal (blue) and background (red) simulated events. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. In the lower panel, the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\mathrm {B}}}$ per category, obtained by integrating signal and background expected events in the HWHM range around the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-b: Distribution of the ZH BDT outputs in signal (blue) and background (red) simulated events. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. In the lower panel, the ${\mathrm {S}/\sqrt {\mathrm {B}}}$ per category, obtained by integrating signal and background expected events in the HWHM range around the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3: Distribution of the ttH hadronic (left) and ttH leptonic (right) BDT outputs in signal (blue) and background (red) simulated events. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. In the lower panel, the ${\text {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\text {B}}}}$ obtained by integrating signal and background expected events inside the hwhm range of the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-a: Distribution of the ttH hadronic BDT outputs in signal (blue) and background (red) simulated events. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. In the lower panel, the ${\text {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\text {B}}}}$ obtained by integrating signal and background expected events inside the hwhm range of the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-b: Distribution of the ttH leptonic BDT outputs in signal (blue) and background (red) simulated events. The dashed vertical lines indicate the boundaries of the optimized event categories. In the lower panel, the ${\text {S}/\sqrt {\smash [b]{\text {B}}}}$ obtained by integrating signal and background expected events inside the hwhm range of the signal peak, is reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4: Expected fraction of signal events per production mode in the different event categories for $m_{{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV. The VBF category is split into four independent entries grouping the content of the bins defined along the DNN output in the VBF-SR. The tH contribution is defined as the sum of tHq and tHW processes.
png pdf	Additional Figure 5: Expected S/(S+B) and $\text {S}/\sqrt {\text {B}}$ ratios in each event category, where S and B indicate the number of expected signal with $m_{{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 125.38 GeV and estimated background events, respectively. In the ggH, VH, and ttH categories, signal and background yields are obtained by integrating the corresponding expectations inside the hwhm range around the signal peak. In contrast, in the VBF category events are split into four subcategories, grouping the expected signal and the predicted background yields in each bin defined along the DNN output in the VBF-SR.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6: The observed DNN output distributions in the VBF-SR for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes are overlaid. The prediction for different Higgs boson mass hypotheses are reported: ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.1 GeV (upper left), ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.3 GeV (upper right), ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.5 GeV (lower left), and ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.7 GeV (lower right). These mass values differ by about $ \pm $1$ \sigma $ and $ \pm $2$ \sigma $ from the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson mass of ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 $\pm$ 0.14 GeV. As described in the text, for each tested mass point the DNN employed in the VBF-SR is reevaluated, producing a different observed distribution as well as alternative templates for signal and background processes. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-a: The observed DNN output distributions in the VBF-SR for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes are overlaid. The prediction is reported for the ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.1 GeV Higgs boson mass hypothesis, which differ by about $ \pm $2$ \sigma $ from the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson mass of ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 $\pm$ 0.14 GeV. As described in the text, the DNN employed in the VBF-SR is reevaluated for this mass point, producing a different observed distribution as well as alternative templates for signal and background processes. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-b: The observed DNN output distributions in the VBF-SR for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes are overlaid. The prediction is reported for the ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.3 GeV Higgs boson mass hypothesis, which differ by about $ \pm $1$ \sigma $ from the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson mass of ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 $\pm$ 0.14 GeV. As described in the text, the DNN employed in the VBF-SR is reevaluated for this mass point, producing a different observed distribution as well as alternative templates for signal and background processes. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-c: The observed DNN output distributions in the VBF-SR for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes are overlaid. The prediction is reported for the ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.5 GeV Higgs boson mass hypothesis, which differ by about $ \pm $1$ \sigma $ from the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson mass of ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 $\pm$ 0.14 GeV. As described in the text, the DNN employed in the VBF-SR is reevaluated for this mass point, producing a different observed distribution as well as alternative templates for signal and background processes. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-d: The observed DNN output distributions in the VBF-SR for the combination of 2016, 2017, and 2018 data, compared to the post-fit prediction from SM processes. The post-fit distributions for the Higgs boson signal produced via ggH (solid red) and VBF (solid black) modes are overlaid. The prediction is reported for the ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.7 GeV Higgs boson mass hypothesis, which differ by about $ \pm $2$ \sigma $ from the most precise measurement of the Higgs boson mass of ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 $\pm$ 0.14 GeV. As described in the text, the DNN employed in the VBF-SR is reevaluated for this mass point, producing a different observed distribution as well as alternative templates for signal and background processes. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and the post-fit background prediction from the S+B fit. The best fit ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution is indicated by the blue histogram (upper panel) and solid line (lower panel), while the grey band indicates the total background uncertainty.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7: Left: the $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of ggH event categories. Categories are weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, where S and B are the number of expected signal and background events with mass within HWHM of the expected signal peak with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV. Right: the $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for a similar weighted combination of VH event categories. The lower panels show the residuals after background subtraction, with the best-fit SM ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV indicated by the red line.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-a: The $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of ggH event categories. Categories are weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, where S and B are the number of expected signal and background events with mass within HWHM of the expected signal peak with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-b: The $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for a similar weighted combination of VH event categories. The lower panels show the residuals after background subtraction, with the best-fit SM ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV indicated by the red line.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8: Left: the $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of ttH event categories. Categories are weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, where S and B are the number of expected signal and background events with mass within HWHM of the expected signal peak with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV. Right: the $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for a similar weighted combination of ggH, VH, and ttH event categories. The lower panels show the residuals after background subtraction, with the best-fit SM ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV indicated by the red line.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-a: The $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for the weighted combination of ttH event categories. Categories are weighted proportionally to the S/(S+B) ratio, where S and B are the number of expected signal and background events with mass within HWHM of the expected signal peak with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-b: The $m_{\mu \mu}$ distribution for a similar weighted combination of ggH, VH, and ttH event categories. The lower panels show the residuals after background subtraction, with the best-fit SM ${{{\mathrm {H}} \to \mu ^{+}\mu ^{-}}}$ signal contribution with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV indicated by the red line.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9: Profile likelihood ratios as a function of $\mu $ for ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} = $ 125.38 GeV, where the solid curves represent the observation in data and the dashed line represents the expected result from the combined signal-plus-background fit. The observed likelihood scans are reported for the full combination (black), as well as for the individual ggH, VBF, VH,and ttH categories.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10: Observed local p-values as a function of $ {m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} $ are shows as extracted from the combined fit performed on data recorded at $\sqrt {s}=$ 7, 8, and 13 TeV (black solid line), as well as from each individual production category of the 13 TeV analysis (blue, red, orange, and green solid lines) and for the 7+8 TeV result (magenta solid line).
png pdf	Additional Figure 11: Relative impact of systematic uncertainties on the Higgs boson signal strength ($\mu $) obtained from the combined {S+B} fit performed across ggH, VBF, ttH, and VH categories. The fifteen most relevant systematic uncertainties are reported in order of decreasing impact on $\mu $ (right panel). Freely floating rate and shape parameters describing the total background in the ggH, ttH, and VH categories are discarded. The impact of each source of uncertainty is defined as the maximum difference in the fitted value of the signal strength obtained by varying the associated nuisance parameter within one standard deviation of its maximum likelihood estimate. The left panel shows the deviation of the best fit estimate for the nuisance parameters from their nomianl values ($\theta _{0}$) relative to their nominal (pre-fit) uncertainty. The associated black error bars show the ratio between the post-fit and the pre-fit uncertainties, while the red error bars indicate the pre-fit estimate for these uncertainties. The rates of the Drell-Yan background component arising from events in which either both or one of the two VBF jets cannot be matched with a jet at the generator level are freely floating in the fit. Therefore, only their post-fit values and corresponding uncertainties are reported.
png pdf	Additional Figure 12: The best-fit estimates for the reduced coupling modifiers extracted for fermions and weak bosons from the resolved $\kappa $-framework model compared to their corresponding prediction from the SM. The green points represent the coupling modifiers for the interactions between the Higgs and vector bosons, while the red, magenta, and blue points refer to the couplings with muons, taus, and quarks of the third generation, respectively. The associated error bars represent 68% CL intervals for the measured parameters. The lower panel shows the ratios of the measured coupling modifiers values to their SM predictions.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13: The expected $m_{\mu \mu}$ distributions in simulated signal events with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} =$ 125 GeV, passing the event selection requirements described in Section 5, obtained with (solid) and without (dashed) including the interaction point as an additional constraint for the muon track. Left: ggH and VBF processes. Right: VH and ttH. The signal peak is modelled using a double-sided Crystal Ball parametric function. The inclusive improvement in the mass resolution, estimated by comparing the HWHM of the corresponding signal peaks, ranges between 5-10% depending on the production mode.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13-a: The expected $m_{\mu \mu}$ distributions in simulated signal events with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} =$ 125 GeV, passing the event selection requirements described in Section 5, obtained with (solid) and without (dashed) including the interaction point as an additional constraint for the muon track: ggH and VBF processes. The signal peak is modelled using a double-sided Crystal Ball parametric function. The inclusive improvement in the mass resolution, estimated by comparing the HWHM of the corresponding signal peaks, ranges between 5-10% depending on the production mode.
png pdf	Additional Figure 13-b: The expected $m_{\mu \mu}$ distributions in simulated signal events with ${m_{{\mathrm {H}}}} =$ 125 GeV, passing the event selection requirements described in Section 5, obtained with (solid) and without (dashed) including the interaction point as an additional constraint for the muon track: VH and ttH processes. The signal peak is modelled using a double-sided Crystal Ball parametric function. The inclusive improvement in the mass resolution, estimated by comparing the HWHM of the corresponding signal peaks, ranges between 5-10% depending on the production mode.
png pdf	Additional Figure 14: Event in which a candidate Higgs boson produced via vector boson fusion (VBF) decays into a pair of muons, indicated by the solid red lines, with an invariant mass of 125.01 GeV and per-event mass uncertainty of 1.83 GeV. The two forward VBF-jet candidates are depicted by the orange cones whose invariant mass (${m_{\text {jj}}}$) is 2.19 TeV. No additional leptons (electrons or muons) with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 20 GeV are present in the event.
png pdf	Additional Figure 15: Event in which a candidate Higgs boson produced via gluon fusion (ggH) decays into a pair of muons, indicated by the solid red lines, with an invariant mass of 125.46 GeV and per-event mass uncertainty of 1.13 GeV. The two muons are emitted back-to-back with respect to the interaction point. No additional jets with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 25 GeV or leptons (electrons or muons) with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 20 GeV are present in the event.
png pdf	Additional Figure 16: Event in which a candidate Higgs boson produced in association with a $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ pair (ttH) decays into a pair of muons, indicated by the solid red lines, while both top quarks decay hadronically. The $m_{\mu \mu}$ of the Higgs candidate is 125.40 GeV and the corresponding per-event mass uncertainty is 1.24 GeV. Jets produced by the hadronic decays of the two top quarks are depicted by the orange cones. No additional leptons (electrons or muons) with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 20 GeV are present in the event.
png pdf	Additional Figure 17: Event in which a candidate Higgs boson produced in association with a $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ pair (ttH) decays into a pair of muons, indicated by the solid red lines, with an invariant mass of 125.30 GeV and per-event mass uncertainty of 1.22 GeV. One of the two top quarks produces in its decay an electron, indicated by the solid green line, and a neutrino that yields missing transverse energy depicted by the pink arrow. The other top quark candidate decays into jets indicated by the the orange cones. No additional leptons (electrons or muons) with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 20 GeV are present in the event.
png pdf	Additional Figure 18: Event in which a candidate Higgs boson produced in association with a W boson (WH) decays into a pair of muons, indicated by the solid red lines, with an invariant mass of 123.18 GeV and per-event mass uncertainty of 1.03 GeV. The W boson candidate decays leptonically into an electron and a neutrino. The two muons are emitted back-to-back with respect to the interaction point. The electron is indicated by a solid green line, while the missing transverse energy produced by the presence of the neutrino is depicted by the pink arrow. No additional leptons (electrons or muons) with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 20 GeV or jets with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 25 GeV are present in the event.
png pdf	Additional Figure 19: Event in which a candidate Higgs boson produced in association with a Z boson (ZH) decays into a pair of muons, indicated by the solid red lines, with an invariant mass of 125.69 GeV and per-event mass uncertainty of 1.55 GeV. The Z boson candidate instead decays leptonically into pair of electrons indicated by the solid green lines. No additional leptons (electrons or muons) with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 20 GeV or jets with ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} > $ 25 GeV are present in the event.

Additional Tables
png pdf	Additional Table 1: Summary of the simulations used to derive the central prediction for the different Higgs boson signal and SM background processes. The accuracy of the inclusive cross section used for each process, as well as higher-order additional corrections when used, are also provided.
png pdf	Additional Table 2: Summary of the systematic uncertainties considered in the analysis, the production categories and the processes they are affecting, their corresponding type in each category (affecting either the total rate or the shape of the distributions), and their correlation across processes and data-taking periods. Detailed information on how they are estimated is given in the text.

References
1	ATLAS Collaboration	Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC	PLB 716 (2012) 1	1207.7214
2	CMS Collaboration	Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC	PLB 716 (2012) 30	CMS-HIG-12-028 1207.7235
3	CMS Collaboration	Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV	JHEP 06 (2013) 081	CMS-HIG-12-036 1303.4571
4	CMS Collaboration	Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons with the CMS detector	PLB 779 (2018) 283	CMS-HIG-16-043 1708.00373
5	CMS Collaboration	Observation of $ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $ production	PRL 120 (2018) 231801	CMS-HIG-17-035 1804.02610
6	CMS Collaboration	Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks	PRL 121 (2018) 121801	CMS-HIG-18-016 1808.08242
7	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 11 (2018) 185	CMS-HIG-16-040 1804.02716
8	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PLB 791 (2019) 96	CMS-HIG-16-042 1806.05246
9	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 11 (2017) 047	CMS-HIG-16-041 1706.09936
10	CMS Collaboration	Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	EPJC 79 (2019) 421	CMS-HIG-17-031 1809.10733
11	ATLAS Collaboration	Cross-section measurements of the Higgs boson decaying into a pair of $ \tau $-leptons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PRD 99 (2019) 072001	1811.08856
12	ATLAS Collaboration	Observation of $ {\mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{b\bar{b}}} $ decays and VH production with the ATLAS detector	PLB 786 (2018) 59	1808.08238
13	ATLAS Collaboration	Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector	PLB 784 (2018) 173	1806.00425
14	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of gluon-gluon fusion and vector-boson-fusion Higgs boson production cross-sections in the $ {\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^{*} \to e\nu\mu\nu} $ decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 789 (2019) 508	1808.09054
15	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the Higgs boson coupling properties in the $ {\mathrm{H}\rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}^{*} \rightarrow 4\ell} $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 03 (2018) 095	1712.02304
16	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PRD 98 (2018) 052005	1802.04146
17	ATLAS Collaboration	Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment	PRD 101 (2020) 012002	1909.02845
18	F. Englert and R. Brout	Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons	PRL 13 (1964) 321
19	P. W. Higgs	Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons	PRL 13 (1964) 508
20	P. W. Higgs	Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons	PR145 (1966) 1156
21	S. Weinberg	A model of leptons	PRL 19 (1967) 1264
22	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group	Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector	(10, 2016)	1610.07922
23	CMS Collaboration	Search for the Higgs boson decaying to two muons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRL 122 (2019) 021801	CMS-HIG-17-019 1807.06325
24	ATLAS Collaboration	A search for the dimuon decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector	Submitted to PLB	2007.07830
25	CMS Collaboration	A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel	PLB 805 (2020) 135425	CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398
26	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
27	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
28	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
29	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
30	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
31	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV	JINST 12 (2017) P02014	CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663
32	CMS Collaboration	Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data	Submitted to JINST	CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503
33	CMS Collaboration	Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV using the CMS detector	JINST 14 (2019) P07004	CMS-JME-17-001 1903.06078
34	CMS Collaboration	Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P05011	CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158
35	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P06015	CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528
36	CMS Collaboration	Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	JINST 10 (2015) P06005	CMS-EGM-13-001 1502.02701
37	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4 --- a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
38	J. Alwall et al.	The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations	JHEP 07 (2014) 079	1405.0301
39	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
40	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
41	S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re	A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX	JHEP 06 (2010) 043	1002.2581
42	E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini	Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM	JHEP 02 (2012) 088	1111.2854
43	K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi	NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production	JHEP 10 (2013) 222	1309.0017
44	K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi	Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator	JHEP 05 (2015) 140	1501.04637
45	P. Nason and C. Oleari	NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson-fusion matched with shower in POWHEG	JHEP 02 (2010) 037	0911.5299
46	G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano	$ {\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}^{\pm}/\mathrm{H}\mathrm{Z}+0} $ and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to gosam and their merging within MiNLO	JHEP 10 (2013) 083	1306.2542
47	H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth	Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX	PRD 91 (2015) 094003	1501.04498
48	C. Anastasiou et al.	High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC	JHEP 05 (2016) 058	1602.00695
49	M. Cacciari et al.	Fully differential vector-boson-fusion Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order	PRL 115 (2015) 082002	1506.02660
50	O. Brein, A. Djouadi, and R. Harlander	NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders	PLB 579 (2004) 149	hep-ph/0307206
51	S. Dawson et al.	Associated Higgs production with top quarks at the large hadron collider: NLO QCD corrections	PRD 68 (2003) 034022	hep-ph/0305087
52	S. Frixione et al.	Weak corrections to Higgs hadroproduction in association with a top-quark pair	JHEP 09 (2014) 065	1407.0823
53	F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and M. Zaro	Higgs production in association with a single top quark at the LHC	EPJC 75 (2015) 267	1504.00611
54	F. Demartin et al.	tWH associated production at the LHC	EPJC 77 (2017) 34	1607.05862
55	A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira	HDECAY: A program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension	CPC 108 (1998) 56	hep-ph/9704448
56	M. Spira	QCD effects in Higgs physics	Fortsch. Phys. 46 (1998) 203	hep-ph/9705337
57	Y. Li and F. Petriello	Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ	PRD 86 (2012) 094034	1208.5967
58	M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, D. Rathlev, and M. Wiesemann	$ {\mathrm{W}^\pm \mathrm{Z}} $ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD	JHEP 05 (2017) 139	1703.09065
59	M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev	$ {\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}} $ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD	PLB 750 (2015) 407	1507.06257
60	T. Gehrmann et al.	$ {\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^-} $ production at hadron colliders in next-to-next-to-leading order QCD	PRL 113 (2014) 212001	1408.5243
61	J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams	Vector boson pair production at the LHC	JHEP 07 (2011) 018	1105.0020
62	M. Czakon and A. Mitov	Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders	CPC 185 (2014) 2930	1112.5675
63	P. Kant et al.	HATHOR for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions	CPC 191 (2015) 74	1406.4403
64	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
65	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 663	1706.00428
66	J. Alwall et al.	Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions	EPJC 53 (2008) 473	0706.2569
67	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
68	T. Sjostrand et al.	An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	CPC 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
69	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
70	CMS Collaboration	Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA~8 tunes from underlying-event measurements	EPJC 80 (2020) 4	CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179
71	B. Cabouat and T. Sjostrand	Some dipole shower studies	EPJC 78 (2018) 226	1710.00391
72	B. Jager et al.	Parton-shower effects in Higgs production via vector-boson-fusion		2003.12435
73	J. Bellm et al.	Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note	EPJC 76 (2016) 196	1512.01178
74	CMS Collaboration	Electroweak production of two jets in association with a $ {\mathrm{Z}} $ boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	EPJC 78 (2018) 589	CMS-SMP-16-018 1712.09814
75	CMS Collaboration	Extraction and validation of a set of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements	CMS-PAS-GEN-19-001	CMS-PAS-GEN-19-001
76	A. Bodek et al.	Extracting muon momentum scale corrections for hadron collider experiments	EPJC 72 (2012) 2194	1208.3710
77	F. Chollet et al.	Keras	2015 Software available from keras.io. \url https://keras.io
78	M. Abadi et al.	TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems	2015 Software available from tensorflow.org. \url https://www.tensorflow.org/
79	J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper	Angular distribution of dileptons in high-energy hadron collisions	PRD 16 (1977) 2219
80	F. Schissler and D. Zeppenfeld	Parton shower effects on $ {\mathrm{W}} $ and $ {\mathrm{Z}} $ production via vector boson fusion at NLO QCD	JHEP 04 (2013) 057	1302.2884
81	CMS Collaboration	Commissioning of trackjets in pp collisions at 7 TeV	CMS-PAS-JME-10-006
82	CMS Collaboration	Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
83	P. Refaeilzadeh, L. Tang, and H. Liu	Cross-Validation	p. 532 Springer US
84	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727
85	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
86	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
87	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
88	R. Barlow and C. Beeston	Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples	CPC 77 (1993) 219
89	J. S. Conway	Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra	in PHYSTAT 2011, p. 115 2011	1103.0354
90	H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt	TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT	in XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40 2007 [PoS(ACAT)040]	physics/0703039
91	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of differential $ {\mathrm{Z}} $ boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 12 (2019) 061	CMS-SMP-17-010 1909.04133
92	M. J. Oreglia	A study of the reactions $\psi' \to \gamma\gamma \psi$	PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980 SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see
93	Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al.	Review of particle physics	Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020 (2020)
94	D. Bourilkov	Photon-induced background for dilepton searches and measurements in pp collisions at 13 TeV		1606.00523
95	D. Bourilkov	Exploring the LHC landscape with dileptons		1609.08994
96	P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies	Handling uncertainties in background shapes	JINST 10 (2015) P04015	1408.6865
97	CMS Collaboration	Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the $ \mu^{+}\mu^{-} $ and $ {\mathrm{e}^{+}\mathrm{e}^{-}} $ decay channels at the LHC	PLB 744 (2015) 184	CMS-HIG-13-007 1410.6679
98	R. A. Fisher	On the interpretation of $ {\chi^{2}} $ from contingency tables, and the calculation of P	Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 85 (1922) 87
99	CMS Collaboration	Evidence for associated production of a Higgs boson with a top quark pair in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying $ {\tau} $ leptons at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 08 (2018) 066	CMS-HIG-17-018 1803.05485
100	CMS Collaboration	Observation of single top quark production in association with a $ {\mathrm{Z}} $ boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRL 122 (2019) 132003	CMS-TOP-18-008 1812.05900
101	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for the neutral Higgs bosons of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 02 (2013) 095	1211.6956
102	CMS Collaboration	Search for dark matter particles produced in association with a top quark pair at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRL 122 (2019) 011803	CMS-EXO-16-049 1807.06522
103	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV using events containing two leptons	JHEP 02 (2019) 149	CMS-TOP-17-014 1811.06625
104	ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and the LHC Higgs Combination Group	Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011	CMS-NOTE-2011-005
105	T. Junk	Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics	NIMA 434 (1999) 435	hep-ex/9902006
106	A. L. Read	Presentation of search results: the CLs technique	JPG 28 (2002) 2693
107	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group	Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties	(7, 2013)	1307.1347

Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN

© Copyright CERN 2018 for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration