A measurement of the Higgs boson mass is presented based on the combined data samples of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the CERN LHC in the H → γγ and H → ZZ → 4l decay channels. The results are obtained from a simultaneous fit to the reconstructed invariant mass peaks in the two channels and for the two experiments. The measured masses from the individual channels and the two experiments are found to be consistent among themselves. The combined measured mass of the Higgs boson is m H ¼ 125.09 AE 0.21 ðstatÞ AE 0.11 ðsystÞ GeV. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803 PACS numbers: 14.80.Bn, 13.85.Qk The study of the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking is one of the principal goals of the CERN LHC program. In the standard model (SM), this symmetry breaking is achieved through the introduction of a complex doublet scalar field, leading to the prediction of the Higgs boson H [1-6], whose mass m H is, however, not predicted by the theory. In 2012, the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the LHC announced the discovery of a particle with Higgs-boson-like properties and a mass of about 125 GeV [7][8][9]. The discovery was based primarily on mass peaks observed in the γγ and ZZ → l þ l − l 0þ l 0−(denoted H → ZZ → 4l for simplicity) decay channels, where one or both of the Z bosons can be off shell and where l and l 0 denote an electron or muon. With m H known, all properties of the SM Higgs boson, such as its production cross section and partial decay widths, can be predicted. Increasingly precise measurements [10][11][12][13] have established that all observed properties of the new particle, including its spin, parity, and coupling strengths to SM particles are consistent within the uncertainties with those expected for the SM Higgs boson.The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have independently measured m H using the samples of proton-proton collision data collected in 2011 and 2012, commonly referred to as LHC Run 1. The analyzed samples correspond to approximately 5 fb −1 of integrated luminosity at ffiffi ffi s p ¼ 7 TeV, and 20 fb −1 at ffiffi ffi s p ¼ 8 TeV, for each experiment. Combined results in the context of the separate experiments, as well as those in the individual channels, are presented in Refs. [12,[14][15][16].This Letter describes a combination of the Run 1 data from the two experiments, leading to improved precision for m H . Besides its intrinsic importance as a fundamental parameter, improved knowledge of m H yields more precise predictions for the other Higgs boson properties. Furthermore, the combined mass measurement provides a first step towards combinations of other quantities, such as the couplings. In the SM, m H is related to the values of the masses of the W boson and top quark through loopinduced effects. Taking into account other measured SM quantities, the comparison of the measurements of the Higgs boson, W boson, and top quark masses can be used to directly test the consistency of the SM [17] and thus to search for evidence of physics beyond the SM.The combination is performed usin...

A: The CMS apparatus was identified, a few years before the start of the LHC operation at CERN, to feature properties well suited to particle-flow (PF) reconstruction: a highly-segmented tracker, a fine-grained electromagnetic calorimeter, a hermetic hadron calorimeter, a strong magnetic field, and an excellent muon spectrometer. A fully-fledged PF reconstruction algorithm tuned to the CMS detector was therefore developed and has been consistently used in physics analyses for the first time at a hadron collider. For each collision, the comprehensive list of final-state particles identified and reconstructed by the algorithm provides a global event description that leads to unprecedented CMS performance for jet and hadronic τ decay reconstruction, missing transverse momentum determination, and electron and muon identification. This approach also allows particles from pileup interactions to be identified and enables efficient pileup mitigation methods. The data collected by CMS at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV show excellent agreement with the simulation and confirm the superior PF performance at least up to an average of 20 pileup interactions. 3 Reconstruction of the particle-flow elements 9 3.1 Charged-particle tracks and vertices 9 3.1.

Improved jet energy scale corrections, based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 fb −1 collected by the CMS experiment in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV, are presented. The corrections as a function of pseudorapidity η and transverse momentum p T are extracted from data and simulated events combining several channels and methods. They account successively for the effects of pileup, uniformity of the detector response, and residual data-simulation jet energy scale differences. Further corrections, depending on the jet flavor and distance parameter (jet size) R, are also presented. The jet energy resolution is measured in data and simulated events and is studied as a function of pileup, jet size, and jet flavor. Typical jet energy resolutions at the central rapidities are 15-20% at 30 GeV, about 10% at 100 GeV, and 5% at 1 TeV. The studies exploit events with dijet topology, as well as photon+jet, Z+jet and multijet events. Several new techniques are used to account for the various sources of jet energy scale corrections, and a full set of uncertainties, and their correlations, are provided.The final uncertainties on the jet energy scale are below 3% across the phase space considered by most analyses (p T > 30 GeV and |η| < 5.0). In the barrel region (|η| < 1.3) an uncertainty below 1% for p T > 30 GeV is reached, when excluding the jet flavor uncertainties, which are provided separately for different jet flavors. A new benchmark for jet energy scale determination at hadron colliders is achieved with 0.32% uncertainty for jets with p T of the order of 165-330 GeV, and |η| < 0.8.

2018 JINST 13 P05011 8.5 Measurement of the data-to-simulation scale factors as a function of the discriminator value 76 8.6 Comparison of the measured data-to-simulation scale factors 79 9 Measurement of the tagging efficiency for boosted topologies 82 9.1 Comparison of data with simulation 82 9.2 Efficiency for subjets 83 9.2.1 Misidentification probability 83 9.2.2 Measurement of the b tagging efficiency 84 9.3 Efficiency of the double-b tagger 86 9.3.1 Measurement of the double-b tagging efficiency 86 9.3.2 Measurement of the misidentification probability for top quarks 87