Articles

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01682-0

Measurement of the Higgs boson width

and evidence of its off-shell contributions
to ZZ production
The CMS Collaboration*✉

Since the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, detailed studies of its properties have been ongoing. Besides its mass, its
width—related to its lifetime—is an important parameter. One way to determine this quantity is to measure its off-shell produc-
tion, where the Higgs boson mass is far away from its nominal value, and relating it to its on-shell production, where the mass
is close to the nominal value. Here we report evidence for such off-shell contributions to the production cross-section of two Z
bosons with data from the CMS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. We constrain the total rate of the off-shell Higgs
boson contribution beyond the Z boson pair production threshold, relative to its standard model expectation, to the interval
[0.0061, 2.0] at the 95% confidence level. The scenario with no off-shell contribution is excluded at a p-value of 0.0003 (3.6
standard deviations). We measure the width of the Higgs boson as ΓH = 3.2+ 2.4 , in agreement with the standard model
−1.7 MeV
expectation of 4.1 MeV. In addition, we set constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to W and Z boson pairs.

T
he standard model (SM) of particle physics provides an ele-
gant description for the masses and interactions of funda-
mental particles. These are fermions, which are the building
blocks of ordinary matter, and gauge bosons, which are the carri-
ers of the electroweak (EW) and strong forces. In addition, the SM
postulates the existence of a quantum field that is responsible for
the generation of the masses of fundamental particles through a
phenomenon known as the Brout–Englert–Higgs mechanism. This
field, known as the Higgs field1–3, interacts with SM particles, giv-
ing them mass, as well as with itself. The field carrier is a massive,
scalar (spin-0) particle known as the Higgs (H) boson. Nearly half
a century after its postulation, it was finally observed in 2012 with a
mass mH of ~125 GeV by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations4–6 at
the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Given the unique role the
H boson plays in the SM, studies of its properties are a major goal
of particle physics.
Apart from mass, another important property of a particle is its
lifetime, τ. Only a few fundamental particles are stable. Others—
including the H boson—exist only for a fleeting moment before dis-
integrating into other, lighter, species. The Heisenberg uncertainty
principle7 provides a direct connection between the lifetime of a
particle and the uncertainty in its mass, a property known as the
particle’s width, Γ. Any unstable particle (often referred to as a reso-
nance) has a finite lifetime, with shorter τ corresponding to broader
Γ. The two quantities are related through the Planck constant, ħ, as
Γ = ħ/(2πτ). Even with perfect experimental resolution, the observed
mass of an unstable particle will not be constant across a series of
measurements (for example, of the invariant mass of its decay prod-
ucts i, which is calculated
√ ∑ from ∑ the sums of their energies, Ei, and
2
momenta, pi, as ( i Ei ) − | i pi |2 ). The possible mass values
are distributed according to a characteristic relativistic Breit–Wigner
distribution8 with a nominal mass value corresponding to the maxi-
mum of the Breit–Wigner, and with width parameter Γ.
Particles are understood to be on the mass shell (on-shell) if their
mass is close to the nominal mass value, and off-shell if their mass
takes a value far away from it. According to the aforementioned
property of the Breit–Wigner line shape, particles are generally
more likely to be produced on-shell than off-shell when energy
and momentum conservation allows it. Scattering amplitudes (A)
for off-shell particle production, followed by a specific decay final
state, may be modified further by interference with other processes,
which is large and destructive in the case of the H boson. In this
specific case, writing A = H + C, where H indicates the H boson con-
tribution and C the other interfering contributions, we will use the
term ‘off-shell production’ as a shorthand for the ∣H∣2 term in ∣A∣2.
For broad resonances, the width can be obtained by directly
measuring the Breit–Wigner line shape, for example, as was done
in the case of the Z boson, which was measured to have a mass of
mZ = 91.188 ± 0.002 GeV and a width of ΓZ = 2.495 ± 0.002 GeV
at the CERN Large Electron Positron collider9. The H boson is
expected to live three orders of magnitude longer, with a theoreti-
cally predicted width of ΓH = 4.1 MeV (0.0041 GeV)10, and a devia-
tion from the SM prediction would indicate the existence of new
physics. This width is too small to be measured directly from the line
shape because of the limited mass resolution of order 1 GeV achiev-
able with the present LHC detectors. Another direct way of measur-
ing the H boson width would be to measure its lifetime by means
of its decay length and use the relationship ΓH = ħ/(2πτH), but its
lifetime is still too short (τH = 1.6 × 10−22 s) to be detectable directly.
The present experimental limit for this quantity is τH < 1.9 × 10−13 s
at 95% confidence level (CL)11, nine orders of magnitude above the
SM lifetime.
The value of ΓH can be extracted with much better precision
through a combined measurement of on-shell and off-shell H-boson
production. In the decay of an H boson with mH ≈ 125 GeV to a
pair of massive gauge bosons V (V = W or Z, with masses around
80.4 or 91.2 GeV, respectively), we have mV < mH < 2mV. Therefore,
when the H boson is produced on-shell (with the VV invariant
mass mVV ~ mH), one of the V bosons must be off-shell to satisfy
four-momentum conservation. Once the H boson is produced
off-shell with large enough invariant mass mVV > 2mV (off-shell

*A list of authors and their affiliations appears online. ✉e-mail: cms-publication-committee-chair@cern.ch

Nature Physics | VOL 18 | November 2022 | 1329–1334 | www.nature.com/naturephysics 1329

Articles
gg → H → ZZ : q1q2 → q′1q′2H → q′1q′2ZZ : qq → ZH → ZZZ :
g q1 q′1
Z
q
Z f
H W H Z Z
W Z
q H
g q2
Z q′2
gg → ZZ : q1q2 → q′1q′2ZZ : qq → ZZ :
g q1 q′1 Z
Z q
Z
W The interference between the H boson and continuum-ZZ
Z
g q2 q′2 q
Z Z
Fig. 1 | Feynman diagrams for important contributions to ZZ production.
Diagrams can be distinguished as those involving the H boson (top) and
those that give rise to continuum-ZZ production (bottom). The interaction
displayed at tree level in each diagram is meant to progress from left to
right. Each straight, curvy or curly line refers to the different set of particles
denoted. Straight, solid lines with no arrows indicate the line could refer to
either a particle or an antiparticle, whereas those with forward (backward)
arrows refer to a particle (an antiparticle).
H-boson production region), the V bosons themselves are produced
on-shell. Because the Breit–Wigner mass distribution of either the
H or V boson maximizes at their respective nominal masses, the rate
of off-shell H-boson production above the V-boson pair production
threshold is enhanced with respect to what one would expect from
the Breit–Wigner line shape of the H boson alone.
The measurement of the higher part of the mVV spectrum can
then be used to establish off-shell H-boson production. The ratio of
off-shell to on-shell production rates allows for a measurement of
ΓH (refs. 12,13) via the cross-section proportionality relations
g2p g2d
σ on-shell ∝ ∝ μp ⇒ σ off-shell ∝ g2p g2d ∝ μp ΓH ,
ΓH
where gp and gd are the couplings associated with the H-boson
production and decay modes, respectively, and μp is the on-shell
H-boson signal strength in the production mode being considered.
Each signal strength is defined as the ratio of the H-boson squared
amplitude in the measured cross-section to that predicted in the SM.
The off-shell H-boson signal strength, μoff -shell, can be expressed as
p
μpΓH in each production mode, and the scenario with no off-shell
production becomes equivalent to the limiting case ΓH = 0. For the
rest of this Article, we concentrate on the ZZ decay channel, that
is, gd corresponding to the H → ZZ decay. The CMS and ATLAS
Collaborations have previously used this method to set upper limits
on ΓH as low as 9.2 MeV at 95% CL14,15.
It is important to distinguish between two types of H boson
production modes: the gluon fusion gg → H → ZZ process, where
the H boson is produced via its couplings to fermions, and the EW
processes, which involve HVV (that is, HWW or HZZ) couplings.
The top row of Fig. 1 shows the Feynman diagrams for the most
dominant contributions to the gg (top left) process, and the EW
processes of vector boson fusion (VBF, top centre) and VH (top
right). A more complete set of diagrams for the EW process is pro-
vided in Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2. Because different H-boson
couplings are involved in the gg and EW processes, we extract two
-shell for the gg mode and
off-shell signal strength parameters, μoff F A ∝ a1 − 1Λ2 2 m2V ϵ∗1 ϵ∗2
μoff -shell for the EW mode. We also consider an overall off-shell sig-
V
nal strength parameter μoff-shell with different assumptions on the
ratio Roff -shell = μoff-shell /μoff-shell.
V,F V F
A major challenge arises from the fact that there are other sources
of ZZ pairs in the SM (continuum-ZZ production); see, for example,
1330
Nature Physics
the bottom row of Fig. 1. These contributions, particularly those
f
from qq → ZZ, are typically much larger than the contribution
from off-shell H → ZZ. In addition, some of the amplitudes from
continuum-ZZ processes interfere with the H-boson amplitudes
Z because they share the same initial and final states. For example,
Z the amplitudes in the first column of Fig. 1, or those in the second
column, interfere with each other; the amplitude shown in the lower
right panel (shown more generically in Extended Data Fig. 3) does
not interfere with any of the other diagrams as we omit the negli-
gible contribution of qq → H → ZZ that would interfere with it.
amplitudes is destructive16–21. This destructive interference plays a
key role in the SM, as it is one of the contributions that unitarizes
the scattering of massive gauge bosons, keeping the computation of
the cross-section for ZZ production in proton–proton (pp) colli-
sions finite16–19. Figure 2 displays the interplay between the H-boson
production modes and the interfering continuum amplitudes, illus-
trating the growing importance of their destructive interference as
mZZ grows in the two final states included in the analysis, ZZ → 2ℓ2ν
and ZZ → 4ℓ. In the parametrization of the total cross-section, con-
tributions from this type of interference
√ between √ the H boson and
continuum-ZZ amplitudes scale as μoff-shell and μoff-shell for the
F V
gg and EW modes, respectively.
In this Article we study off-shell H-boson decays to ZZ → 2ℓ2ν,
and on-shell as well as off-shell H-boson decays to ZZ → 4ℓ (ℓ = μ
or e), using a sample of pp collisions at 13 TeV collected by the CMS
experiment at the LHC. The selection and analysis of the off-shell
ZZ → 2ℓ2ν data sample is described in detail in this Article, and it
is based on data collected between 2016 and 2018, corresponding to
an integrated luminosity of 138 fb−1. For the ZZ → 4ℓ mode, we use
previously published CMS off-shell (2016 and 2017 datasets, 78 fb−1;
ref. 15) and on-shell (201515,22 and 2016–201823 datasets, 2.3 fb−1 and
138 fb−1, respectively) results.
Information on the off-shell signal strengths, ΓH, and constraints
on possible beyond-the-SM (BSM) anomalous couplings are
extracted from combined fits over several kinematic distributions
of the selected 2ℓ2ν and 4ℓ events. Although the off-shell events are
the ones solely used to establish the presence of off-shell H-boson
production, the measurement of ΓH relies on the combination of
on-shell and off-shell data.
Because of the presence of neutrinos, the H-boson mass cannot be
precisely reconstructed in the H → 2ℓ2ν final state, as the longitudi-
nal component of the total momentum carried by the neutrinos can-
not be measured. Thus, on-shell information can only be extracted
from the 4ℓ mode. This combination of 4ℓ and 2ℓ2ν data enables
the measurement of ΓH with a precision of ~50%. The measurement
improves the upper limit on τH by eight orders of magnitude com-
pared to the direct constraint from ref. 11. The inclusion of the 2ℓ2ν
data also allows the lower limits on μoff -shell to reach within ~65% of
V
its best-fit value, compared to the weaker constraints from 4ℓ data
alone, which reach within ~90% of the 4ℓ-only best-fit value15.
The mZZ line shape is sensitive to the potential presence of anom-
alous HVV couplings10,11,15,24–26. Thus, BSM physics could affect the
ratio of off-shell to on-shell H boson production rates, and there-
fore the measurement of ΓH. We test the effect of these couplings
on the ΓH measurement and constrain the contribution from these
couplings themselves. In parametrizing anomalous HVV contribu-
tions, we adopt the formalism of ref. 15 with scattering amplitude
q2 + q2
[ ]
1
∗(1) ∗(2) μν ∗(1)
+a2 f μν f + a3 f μν f̃ ∗(2) μν .
Here, the polarization vector (four-momentum) of the vec-
tor boson Vi is denoted by ϵi (qi), and f (i) μν = ϵiμ qiν − ϵiν qiμ and
Nature Physics | VOL 18 | November 2022 | 1329–1334 | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Nature Physics Articles
CMS simulation 13 TeV CMS simulation 13 TeV
104 101
gg→2 2ν ( = e, µ) EW ZZ(→4 ) + qq production ( = e, µ)
103 100
SM H signal (∣H∣2) SM H signal (∣H∣2)
102
–1
SM contin. (∣C∣2) 10 SM contin. (∣C∣2)
101
(fb GeV–1)

dσ/dm4 (fb GeV–1)

100 SM total (∣H + C∣2) SM total (∣H + C∣2)
10–2
10 –1 ∣H∣2 + ∣C∣2 ∣H∣2 + ∣C∣2
–2 10–3
10
2ν
dσ/dm2

10–3 10–4
–4
10
10–5
10–5
10–6 10–6
–7
10
10–7
100 200 300 500 1,000 2,000 100 200 300 500 1,000 2,000
m2 2ν (GeV) m4 (GeV)

Fig. 2 | SM calculations of ZZ invariant mass in the gg and EW processes. Distributions for the 2ℓ2ν invariant mass (m2ℓ2ν) from the gg → 2ℓ2ν process
(left) and for the 4ℓ invariant mass (m4ℓ) from the EW ZZ(→4ℓ) + qq processes (right). These processes involve the H boson (∣H∣2) and interfering
continuum (∣C∣2) contributions to the scattering amplitude, as shown in black and gold, respectively. The dashed green curve represents their direct
sum without interference (∣H∣2 + ∣C∣2), and the solid magenta curve represents the sum with interference included (∣H + C∣2). Note that the interference
is destructive, and its importance grows as the mass increases. The integrated luminosity is taken to be 1 fb−1, so these distributions are equivalent to
the differential cross-section spectra dσ/dm2ℓ2ν (left) and dσ/dm4ℓ (right). The distributions are shown after requiring that all charged leptons satisfy
pT > 7 GeV and ∣η∣ < 2.4, and that the invariant mass of any charged lepton pair with the same flavour and opposite charge is greater than 4 GeV. Here, pT
denotes the magnitude of the momentum of these leptons transverse to the pp collision axis, and η denotes their pseudorapidity, defined as −ln[tan (θ/2)]
using the angle θ between the momentum vector and the collision axis. Calculations for the gg → 4ℓ and EW ZZ(→2ℓ2ν) + qq processes exhibit similar
qualitative properties. The details of the Monte Carlo programs used for these calculations are provided in the Methods.

(i)
f̃ μν = 12 ϵ μνρα f (i) ρα are tensor expressions for each Vi. The BSM
couplings a2, a3 and 1/Λ21 (denoted generically as ai) are assumed
to be real and can take negative values, with the κ factors in ref. 15
absorbed into the definition of 1/Λ21. The first two are coefficients for
generic CP-conserving and CP-violating higher-dimensional oper-
ators, respectively, while 1/Λ21 is the coefficient for the first-order
term in the expansion of a SM-like tensor structure with an anoma-
lous dipole form factor in the invariant masses of the two V bosons.
In what follows, we will use the shorthand ‘ai hypothesis’ to refer
to the scenario where all BSM HVV couplings other than ai itself
are zero.
Throughout this work, we assume that the gluon fusion loop
amplitudes do not receive new physics contributions apart from a
rescaling of the SM amplitude. Possible modifications of the mZZ
line shape26,27 are neglected based on existing LHC constraints28–30.
2ℓ2ν analysis considerations. The 2ℓ2ν analysis is based on the
reconstruction of Z → ℓℓ decays with a second Z boson decaying to
neutrinos that escape detection. The momentum of the undetected
Z boson transverse to the pp collision axis can be measured through
an imbalance across all remaining particles, that is, missing trans-
verse momentum ( pmissT or pmiss
T in vector form). Thus, the analysis
miss
requires large pT as the Z → νν signature.
The event selection is sensitive to the tail of the instrumental
are estimated from simulation. A third CR of trilepton events,
consisting mostly of qq′ → WZ events, is used to constrain the
qq′ → WZ background and, most importantly, the large qq → ZZ
background. The ability to constrain qq → ZZ from qq′ → WZ is
based on the similarity in the physics of these processes.
Further details on event selection, kinematic observables and the
methods to estimate the different contributions are discussed in the
Methods.
2ℓ2ν kinematic observables. The analysis of off-shell H-boson
events is based on mZZ. This quantity is computed from the recon-
structed momenta in the 4ℓ final state as the invariant mass of the
4ℓ system, m4ℓ. However, because of the undetected neutrinos, we
can only use the transverse mass mZZ T , defined below, as a proxy for
mZZ in the 2ℓ2ν final state. First, we identify pmiss
T as the transverse
momentum vector of the Z boson decaying into neutrinos. As there
is no information on the longitudinal momenta of the neutrinos,
mZZT is then computed as the invariant mass of the ZZ pair with all
longitudinal momenta set to zero. This results in a variable with a
distribution that peaks at mZZ, with a long tail towards lower values.
The definition of mZZ
T is
2
 ZZ 2 2
miss 2 + m 2
mT = pℓℓ
T + m ℓℓ
2+ p T Z

pmiss
T resolution in pp → Z + jets events, which constitute an impor-
miss 2
T + pT
−pℓℓ ,
 
tant reducible background. This contribution is estimated through
a study of a data control region (CR) of γ + jets events, where pmiss
T is
purely instrumental, as it is in Z + jets events. where pℓℓ T and mℓℓ are the dilepton transverse momentum and
Processes such as pp → tt or WW result in non-resonant dilep- invariant mass, respectively, and mZ, the Z boson pole mass, is taken
ton final states of the same (e+e− and μ+μ−) and opposite (e±μ∓) to be 91.2 GeV.
flavour, with the same probability and the same kinematic proper- The kinematic quantity pmiss T itself is used as another observ-
ties. Thus, their background contribution to the 2ℓ2ν signal, which able to discriminate processes with genuine, large pmiss
T against the
includes two leptons of the same flavour, is estimated from an Z + jets background. Finally, in events with at least two jets, we use
opposite-flavour eμ CR. matrix element (MELA26) kinematic discriminants that distinguish
Other backgrounds from qq → ZZ, qq′ → WZ with W → ℓν and the VBF process from the gg process or SM backgrounds. These
VBF
an undetected lepton, and the small contribution from tZ production, discriminants are the D2jet -type kinematic discriminants used in

Nature Physics | VOL 18 | November 2022 | 1329–1334 | www.nature.com/naturephysics 1331

Articles Nature Physics

CMS 138 fb–1 (13 TeV) CMS 78 fb–1 (13 TeV)

103
2 2ν, pTmiss > 200 GeV 4 , bkg > 0.6
3
10 Observed Observed
Total, no off-shell Total, no off-shell
102
gg + EW SM total gg + EW SM total
Events per bin Other SM Other SM

Events per bin

2
10

10

10

3 2
SM tot.

SM tot.
2
1

1
1
1
0
×

×
300 500 1,000 220 400 600 800
m TZZ (GeV) m4 (GeV)

Fig. 3 | Distributions of ZZ invariant mass observables in the off-shell signal regions. Distributions of transverse ZZ invariant mass, mZZ T , from the
2ℓ2ν off-shell signal region (left) and those of the 4ℓ invariant mass, m4ℓ, from the 4ℓ off-shell signal region (right). The stacked histogram displays
the distribution after a fit to the data with SM couplings, with the blue shaded area corresponding to the SM processes that do not include H-boson
interactions, and the pink shaded area adding processes that include H-boson and interference contributions. The gold dot-dashed line shows the fit to
the no off-shell hypothesis. The black points with error bars representing uncertainties at 68% CL show the observed data, which are consistent with
the prediction with SM couplings within 1 s.d. The last bins contain the overflow. The requirements on the missing transverse momentum pmiss T in 2ℓ2ν
events, and the Dbkg-type kinematic background discriminants (table II of ref. 15) in 4ℓ events are applied to enhance the H-boson signal contribution. The
displayed values of integrated luminosity correspond to those included in the off-shell analyses of each final state. The bottom panels show the ratio of the
data or dashed histograms to the SM prediction (stacked histogram). The black horizontal line in these panels marks unit ratio.

CMS ≤138 fb–1 (13 TeV) CMS ≤140 fb–1 (13 TeV)
4.0
–2 ∆ ln L = 5.99 14 2 2ν + 4 off-shell + 4 on-shell
3.5 –2 ∆ ln L = 2.30
2 2ν off-shell + 4 on-shell
Best fit
3.0 SM 12 4 off-shell + 4 on-shell

2.5
10 Observed
µ Voff-shell

2.0 Expected
–2 ∆ ln L

1.5 8

1.0
6

0.5
4
0 95% CL
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
µ Foff-shell 2
68% CL

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15
–2 ∆ ln L ΓH (MeV)

Fig. 4 | Log-likelihood scans of μoff -shell and μoff-shell, and Γ . Left: two-parameter likelihood scan of the off-shell gg and EW production signal strength
F V H
parameters, μoff -shell and μoff-shell, respectively. The dot-dashed and dashed contours enclose the 68% (−2Δ ln L = 2.30) and 95% (−2Δ ln L = 5.99)
F V
CL regions. The cross marks the minimum, and the blue diamond marks the SM expectation. The integrated luminosity reaches only up to 138 fb−1 as
on-shell 4ℓ events are not included in performing this scan. Right: observed (solid) and expected (dashed) one-parameter likelihood scans over ΓH. Scans
are shown for the combination of 4ℓ on-shell data with 4ℓ off-shell (magenta) or 2ℓ2ν off-shell data (green) alone, or with both datasets (black). The
horizontal lines indicate the 68% (−2Δ ln L = 1.0) and 95% (−2Δ ln L = 3.84) CL regions. The integrated luminosity reaches up to 140 fb−1 as on-shell 4ℓ
events are included in performing these scans. The exclusion of the no off-shell hypothesis is consistent with 3.6 s.d. in both panels.

1332 Nature Physics | VOL 18 | November 2022 | 1329–1334 | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles
Evidence for off-shell contributions, and width measurement. A
Table 1 | Results for the off-shell signal strengths and ΓH representative distribution of mZZ T , integrated over all Nj, is shown
Param. Cond. Observed Expected for 2ℓ2ν events in the left panel of Fig. 3. Finer details in terms
of Nj and the various contributions to the event sample are pre-
68% CL 95% CL 68% CL 95% CL sented in Extended Data Fig. 4. The CRs for instrumental pmiss and
T
μFoff-shell μVoff-shell (u) 0.62+ 0.68
−0.45
+1.38
−0.614
+1.1
−0.99998
<3.0 non-resonant dilepton production backgrounds are illustrated in
Extended Data Figs. 5 and 6, respectively, and the CR with trilepton
μVoff-shell μFoff-shell (u) 0.90+ 0.9 +2.0 +2.0 <4.5
−0.59 −0.849 −0.89 WZ events is illustrated in Extended Data Fig. 7. Also shown in the
off-shell -shell
μ Roff
V,F =1 0.74+ 0.56
−0.38
+1.06
−0.61
+1.0
−0.84
+1.7
−0.9914
right panel of Fig. 3 is a representative distribution of m4ℓ from the
Roff -shell (u)
0.62+ 0.68 +1.38 +1.1 +2.0 combined off-shell 4ℓ events.
V,F −0.45 −0.6139 −0.99996 −0.99999
The constraints on μoff -shell, μoff-shell, μoff-shell and Γ are summa-
F V H
ΓH 2ℓ2ν + 4ℓ 3.2+ 2.4
−1.7
+5.3
−2.7
+4.0
−3.5
+7.2
−4.07 rized in Table 1, where we show the ‘observed’ results, that is, those
ΓH 2ℓ2ν 3.1+ 3.4 +7.3 +5.1 +9.1 extracted from data, as well as the ‘expected’ ones, that is, those
−2.9 −3.7 −4.099
−2.1
based on the SM and our understanding of selection efficiencies,
ΓH 4ℓ 3.8+ 3.8
−2.7
+8.0
−3.73
+5.1
−4.05
<13.8 backgrounds and systematic uncertainties. The two sets of results
The various fit conditions are indicated in the column labelled ‘Cond.’. Results for μoff-shell are are consistent with statistical fluctuations in the data. The constraint
off-shell -shell /μoff-shell either unconstrained (u) or =1, and constraints on
presented with RV,F = μoff
V F
-shell and μoff-shell are shown with the other signal strength unconstrained. Results on Γ (in units on ΓH at the 95% confidence level corresponds to 7.7 × 10−23 < τH 
μoff
F V
of MeV) are obtained with the on-shell signal strengths unconstrained, and the different conditions
H
< 1.3 × 10−21 s in the H-boson lifetime.
listed for this quantity reflect which off-shell final states are combined with on-shell 4ℓ data. The The profile likelihood scans in the μoff -shell and μoff-shell plane are
F V
expected central values, not quoted explicitly in this table, are either unity for μoff-shell, μoff -shell and
-shell, or Γ = 4.1 MeV.
F shown in the left panel of Fig. 4 (scans over the individual signal
μoff
V H
strengths are provided in Extended Data Fig. 8). Likelihood scans
over ΓH are displayed in the right panel of Fig. 4. These scans always
refs. 15,23, and are based on the four-momenta of the H boson and include information from the 4ℓ on-shell data, and the three cases
the two jets leading in pT. displayed correspond to adding the 4ℓ off-shell data alone, the 2ℓ2ν
off-shell data alone or adding both. The steepness of the slope of
Data interpretation. The results for the off-shell signal strength the log-likelihood curves near μoff-shell = 0 and ΓH = 0 MeV is caused
parameters μoff -shell, μoff-shell and μoff-shell, as well as the H-boson by the interference terms between the H-boson
F V √and continuum-ZZ √
width ΓH, are extracted from binned extended maximum likelihood production amplitudes, which scale with μoff-shell or ΓH ,
fits over several kinematic distributions following the parametriza- respectively.
tion in ref. 15. In this parametrization, all mass dependencies are The no off-shell scenario with μoff-shell = 0, or ΓH = 0 MeV is
absorbed into the distributions for the various terms contributing excluded at a p-value of 0.0003 (3.6 s.d.). The p-value calculation
to the likelihood, and the off-shell signal strength parameters, or was checked with pseudoexperiments and the Feldman–Cousins
ΓH, are kept mass-independent. Over different data periods and prescription37. As described in greater detail in the Methods, the
event categories, 117 multidimensional distributions are used in the exclusion is illustrated in Extended Data Fig. 9 through a compari-
fit: 42 for off-shell 2ℓ2ν data (10,867 events), including 18 distri- son of the total number of events in each off-shell signal region bin
butions from the trilepton WZ CR (8,541 events), and 18 and 57 predicted for the fit of the data to the no off-shell scenario, and the
for off-shell and on-shell 4ℓ data (1,407 off-shell and 621 on-shell best fit. Constraints on ΓH are stable within 1 MeV (0.1 MeV) for
events), respectively. the upper (lower) limits when testing the presence of anomalous
In the 2ℓ2ν data sample, the value of mZZ T is required to be greater HVV couplings. More results on these anomalous couplings are
than 300 GeV. Depending on the number of jets (Nj), this sample is discussed in the Methods and are presented in Extended Data Fig.
VBF
binned in mZZ T and pT
miss
(Nj < 2) or mZZT , pT
miss
and the D2jet -type 8 and Extended Data Table 1. All results are also tabulated in the
kinematic discriminants (Nj ≥ 2). For the 4ℓ samples, the binning HEPData record for this analysis38.
is in m4ℓ and MELA discriminants, which are sensitive to differ-
ences between the H-boson signal and continuum-ZZ production, Online content
or the interfering amplitudes, or anomalous HVV couplings. These Any methods, additional references, Nature Research report-
variables are listed in table II of ref. 15 for 4ℓ off-shell data, under ing summaries, source data, extended data, supplementary infor-
‘Scheme 2’ in table IV of ref. 23 for on-shell 2016–2018 data, and in mation, acknowledgements, peer review information; details of
table 1 of ref. 15 for on-shell 2015 data. The m4ℓ range is required to author contributions and competing interests; and statements of
be within 105–140 GeV for 4ℓ on-shell data, or above 220 GeV for data and code availability are available at https://doi.org/10.1038/
4ℓ off-shell data. s41567-022-01682-0.
Theoretical uncertainties in the kinematic distributions include
the simulation of extra jets (up to 20% depending on Nj), and the Received: 14 February 2022; Accepted: 21 June 2022;
quantum chromodynamic (QCD) running scale and parton distri- Published online: 20 October 2022
bution function (PDF) uncertainties in the cross-section calculation
(up to 30% and 20%, respectively, depending on the process, and References
mZZT or m4ℓ). These are particularly important in the gg process, as it 1. Englert, F. & Brout, R. Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector
cannot be constrained by the trilepton WZ CR. Theory uncertain- mesons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321–323 (1964).
2. Higgs, P. W. Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons. Phys. Rev.
ties also include those associated with the EW corrections to the
Lett. 13, 508–509 (1964).
qq → ZZ and WZ processes, which reach 20% at masses around 3. Guralnik, G. S., Hagen, C. R. & Kibble, T. W. B. Global conservation laws and
1 TeV (refs. 31,32). massless particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585–587 (1964).
Experimental uncertainties include uncertainties in the lepton 4. ATLAS Collaboration. Observation of a new particle in the search for the
reconstruction and trigger efficiency (typically 1% per lepton), the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Phys.
Lett. B 716, 1–29 (2012).
integrated luminosity (between 1.2% and 2.5%, depending on the 5. CMS Collaboration. Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with
data-taking period33–35) and the jet energy scale and resolution36, the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 30–61 (2012).
which affect the counting of jets, as well as the reconstruction of the 6. CMS Collaboration. Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in
VBF discriminants. pp collisions at s = 7 and 8 TeV. J. High Energy Phys. 06, 81 (2013).
√

Nature Physics | VOL 18 | November 2022 | 1329–1334 | www.nature.com/naturephysics 1333

Articles
7. Heisenberg, W. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen
Kinematik und Mechanik. Z. Phys. 43, 172–198 (1927).
8. Breit, G. & Wigner, E. Capture of slow neutrons. Phys. Rev. 49, 519–531
(1936).
9. Schael, S. et al. Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance.
Phys. Rept. 427, 257–454 (2006).
10. LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group. Handbook of LHC Higgs cross
sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector. CERN Report
CERN-2017-002-M (CERN, 2016); https://doi.org/10.23731/CYRM-2017-002
11. CMS Collaboration. Limits on the Higgs boson lifetime and width from its
decay to four charged leptons. Phys. Rev. D 92, 072010 (2015).
12. Caola, F. & Melnikov, K. Constraining the Higgs boson width with ZZ
production at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 88, 054024 (2013).
13. Campbell, J. M., Ellis, R. K. & Williams, C. Bounding the Higgs width at
the LHC using full analytic results for gg → e−e+μ−μ+. J. High Energy Phys. 04,
60 (2014).
14. ATLAS Collaboration. Constraints on off-shell Higgs boson production and
the Higgs boson total width in ZZ → 4ℓ and ZZ → 2ℓ2ν final states with the
ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B 786, 223–244 (2018).
15. CMS Collaboration. Measurements of the Higgs boson width and anomalous
HVV couplings from on-shell and off-shell production in the four-lepton
final state. Phys. Rev. D 99, 112003 (2019).
16. Llewellyn Smith, C. H. High-energy behavior and gauge symmetry. Phys. Lett.
B 46, 233–236 (1973).
17. Cornwall, J. M., Levin, D. N. & Tiktopoulos, G. Derivation of gauge
invariance from high-energy unitarity bounds on the S-matrix. Phys. Rev. D
10, 1145–1167 (1974); erratum Phys. Rev. D 11, 972 (1975).
18. Lee, B. W., Quigg, C. & Thacker, H. B. Weak interactions at very
high-energies: the role of the Higgs boson mass. Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519–1531
(1977).
19. Glover, E. W. N. & van der Bij, J. J. Z boson pair production via gluon fusion.
Nucl. Phys. B 321, 561–590 (1989).
20. Campanario, F., Li, Q., Rauch, M. & Spira, M. ZZ + jet production via gluon
fusion at the LHC. J. High Energy Phys. 06, 69 (2013).
21. Kauer, N. & Passarino, G. Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light
Higgs boson signal. J. High Energy Phys. 08, 116 (2012).
22. CMS Collaboration. Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings using
production and decay information in the four-lepton final state. Phys. Lett. B
775, 1–24 (2017).
23. CMS Collaboration. Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to
vector bosons and fermions in its production and decay using the four-lepton
final state. Phys. Rev. D 104, 052004 (2021).
24. Gainer, J. S., Lykken, J., Matchev, K. T., Mrenna, S. & Park, M.
Beyond geolocating: Constraining higher dimensional operators in
H → 4ℓ with off-shell production and more. Phys. Rev. D 91, 035011
(2015).
25. Englert, C. & Spannowsky, M. Limitations and opportunities of off-shell
coupling measurements. Phys. Rev. D 90, 053003 (2014).
1334 Nature Physics | VOL 18 | November 2022 | 1329–1334 | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Nature Physics
26. Gritsan, A. V. et al. New features in the JHU generator framework:
Constraining Higgs boson properties from on-shell and off-shell production.
Phys. Rev. D 102, 056022 (2020).
√ U. Measurements of Higgs Boson Properties in Proton-Proton Collisions
27. Sarica,
at s = 7 , 8 and 13 TeV at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. PhD thesis,
Johns Hopkins Univ. (2019); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25474-2
28. CMS Collaboration. Measurements of ttH production and the CP structure
of the Yukawa interaction between the Higgs boson and top quark in the
diphoton decay channel. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 061801 (2020).
29. ATLAS Collaboration. CP properties of Higgs boson interactions with top
quarks in the ttH and tH processes using H → γγ with the ATLAS detector.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 061802 (2020).
30. Ethier, J. J. et al. Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top
quark data from the LHC. J. High Energy Phys. 11, 89 (2021).
31. Bierweiler, A., Kasprzik, T. & Kühn, J. H. Vector-boson pair production at the
LHC to O(α3 ) accuracy. J. High Energy Phys. 12, 71 (2013).
32. Manohar, A., Nason, P., Salam, G. P. & Zanderighi, G. How bright is the
proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 242002 (2016).
33. CMS Collaboration. Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton
collisions at in s = 13 TeV 2015 and 2016 at CMS. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 800
√
(2021).
34. CMS Collaboration. CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking
period at s = 13 TeV. CMS Physics Analysis Summary
√
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 (CERN, 2018); https://cds.cern.ch/record/2621960
35. CMS Collaboration. CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking
period at s = 13 TeV. CMS Physics Analysis Summary
√
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 (CERN, 2019); https://cds.cern.ch/record/2676164
36. CMS Collaboration. Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment
in pp collisions at 8 TeV. JINST 12, P02014 (2017).
37. Feldman, G. J. & Cousins, R. D. A unified approach to the classical statistical
analysis of small signals. Phys. Rev. D 57, 3873–3889 (1998).
38. CMS Collaboration. HEPData record for this analysis (2022); https://doi.
org/10.17182/hepdata.127288
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© CERN 2022
Nature Physics
M­et­ho­ds
Experimental set-up. The CMS apparatus39 is a multipurpose, nearly hermetic
detector, designed to trigger on40 and identify muons, electrons, photons and
charged or neutral hadrons41–43. A global reconstruction algorithm, particle-flow
(PF)44, combines the information provided by the all-silicon inner tracker and by
the crystal electromagnetic and brass-scintillator hadron calorimeters (ECAL and
HCAL, respectively), operating inside a 3.8-T superconducting solenoid, with
data from gas-ionization muon detectors interleaved with the solenoid return
yoke, to build jets, missing transverse momentum, tau leptons and other physics
objects36,45,46. In the following discussion up to likelihood scans, we will focus
on the details of the 2ℓ2ν analysis. Analysis details for the off-shell 4ℓ data are
available in ref. 15, 2015 on-shell 4ℓ data in refs. 15,22 and 2016–2018 on-shell 4ℓ
data in ref. 23.
Physics objects. Events in the 2ℓ2ν signal region, the eμ CR and the trilepton WZ
CR are selected using single-lepton and dilepton triggers. The efficiencies of these
selections are measured using orthogonal triggers, that is, jet or pmiss triggers, and
T
events triggered on a third, isolated lepton, or a jet. They range between 78% and
100%, depending on the flavour of the leptons, and pT and η of the dilepton system,
taking lower values at lower pT. Photon triggers are used to collect events for the
γ + jets CR. The photon trigger efficiency is measured using a tag-and-probe
method47 in Z → ee events, with one electron interpreted as a photon with tracks
ignored, as well as through a study of ℓℓγ events. The efficiency is found to range
from ~55% at 55 GeV in photon pT to ~95% at photon pT > 220 GeV.
Jets are reconstructed using the anti-kT algorithm48 with a distance parameter
of 0.4. Jet energies are corrected for instrumental effects, as well as for the
contribution of particles originating from additional pp interactions (pileup). A
multivariate technique is used to suppress jets from pileup interactions49. For the
purpose of this analysis,√we select jets of pT > 30 GeV and ∣η∣ < 4.7, and they must
be separated by ΔR = (Δϕ)2 + (Δη)2 > 0.4, where ϕ is the azimuthal angle
(measured in radians) from a lepton or a photon of interest. Jets within ∣η∣ < 2.5
(∣η∣ < 2.4 for 2016 data) can be identified as b jets using the DeepJet algorithm50
with a loose working point. The efficiency of this working point ranges between
75% and 95%, depending on pT, η and the data period.
The missing transverse momentum vector pmiss is estimated from the negative
T
of the vector sum of the transverse momenta of all PF candidates. Dedicated
algorithms51 are used to eliminate events featuring cosmic ray contributions,
beam–gas interactions, beam halo or calorimetric noise.
The algorithms to reconstruct leptons are described in detail in ref. 41 for
muons and ref. 42 for electrons. Muons are identified using a set of requirements
on individual variables, and electrons are identified using a boosted decision tree
algorithm. Leptons of interest in this analysis are expected to be isolated with
respect to the activity in the rest of the event. A measure of isolation is computed
from the flux of photons and hadrons reconstructed by the PF algorithm that are
within a cone of ΔR < 0.3 built around the lepton direction, including corrections
from the contributions of pileup. We define loose and tight isolation requirements
for muons (electrons) with pT > 5 GeV and ∣η∣ < 2.4 (∣η∣ < 2.5). The efficiency of
loose selection for muons (electrons) ranges from ~85% (65–75%, depending on
η) at pT = 5 GeV to >90% (>85%) at pT > 25 GeV. The additional requirements for
tight selections reduce the efficiencies by 10–15%.
Photons are reconstructed from energy clusters in the ECAL not linked to
charged tracks, with the exception of converted photons42. Their energies are
corrected for shower containment in the ECAL crystals and energy loss due to
conversions in the tracker with a multivariate regression. In this analysis, we
consider photons with pT > 20 GeV and ∣η∣ up to 2.5, with requirements on shower
shape and isolation used to identify isolated photons and separate them from
hadronic jets. The selection requirements are tightened in the γ + jets CR, which
leads to selection efficiencies in the range 50–75%, depending on pT and η.
Event simulation. The signal Monte Carlo (MC) samples are generated for an
undecayed H boson for gg, VBF, ZH and WH productions using the POWHEG
252–55 program at next-to-leading order (NLO) in QCD at various H-boson pole
masses ranging from 125 GeV to 3 TeV. The generated H bosons are decayed to
four-fermion final states through intermediate Z bosons using the JHUGen26
program, with versions between 6.9.8 and 7.4.0.
These samples are reweighted using the MELA matrix element package, which
interfaces with the JHUGen and MCFM13,56–58 matrix elements, following the
same reweighting techniques used in ref. 15 to obtain the final ZZ event sample,
including the H-boson contribution, the continuum and their interference. The
MelaAnalytics package developed for ref. 15 is used to automate matrix element
computations and to account for the extra partons in the NLO simulation. The gg
generation is rescaled with the next-to-NLO (NNLO) QCD K-factor, differential
in mVV, and an additional uniform K-factor of 1.10 for the next-to-NNLO
cross-section computed at mH = 125 GeV (ref. 10). Furthermore, the pole mass
values of the top quark (173 GeV) and the bottom quark (4.8 GeV)59 are used in
the massive loop calculations for the generation of this process. The difference that
would be introduced by using the MS renormalization scheme for these masses is
found to be within systematic uncertainties after accounting for the effects on both
the H-boson and continuum-ZZ amplitudes.
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Articles
The tree-level Feynman diagrams in Fig. 1 illustrate the complete set
contributing to the gg → ZZ process on the leftmost top and bottom panels, and
some of the diagrams contributing to the EW ZZ production associated with two
fermions on the middle and top right panels. Extended Data Figs. 1 and 2 display
the full set of diagrams for the EW process.
The qq → ZZ and WZ MC samples are also generated with POWHEG 2
applying EW NLO corrections for two on-shell Z and W bosons31,32, and NNLO
QCD corrections as a function of mVV (ref. 60). The tree-level Feynman diagrams
for these non-interfering continuum contributions are illustrated in Extended Data
Fig. 3. Samples for the tZ + X processes, or other processes contributing to the
CRs, are generated using MadGraph5_aMC@NLO at NLO or LO precision using
the FxFx61 or MLM62 schemes, respectively, to match jets from matrix element
calculations and parton shower.
The parton shower and hadronization are modelled with Pythia (8.205 or
8.230)63, using tunes CUETP8M164 for the 2015 and 2016 datasets, and CP565 for
the 2017 and 2018 periods. The PDFs are taken from NNPDF 3.066 with QCD
orders matching those of the cross-section calculations. Finally, the detector
response is simulated with the GEANT467 package.
Signal region selection requirements. Events in the 2ℓ2ν final state are required
to have two opposite-sign, same-flavour leptons (μ+μ− or e+e−) satisfying
tight isolation requirements with pT > 25 GeV, mℓℓ within 15 GeV of mZ, and
pℓℓ
T > 55 GeV. Additional requirements are imposed to reduce contributions
from Z + jets and tt processes as follows. Events with b-tagged jets, additional
loosely isolated leptons of pT > 5 GeV or additional loosely identified photons
with pT > 20 GeV are vetoed. To further improve the effectiveness of the lepton
veto, events with isolated reconstructed tracks of pT > 10 GeV are removed. This
requirement is also effective against one-prong τ decays.
The value of pmiss
T is required to be >125 GeV (>140 GeV) for Nj < 2 (≥2).
Requirements are imposed on the unsigned azimuthal opening angles (Δϕ)
between pmiss
T and other objects in the event to reduce contamination from pmiss T
misreconstruction: Δϕℓℓ miss > 1.0 between pT
miss
and pℓℓ ℓℓ+jets
T , Δϕmiss > 2.5 between
∑ j j
pmiss
T and pℓℓT + pT, min Δϕmiss > 0.25 (0.50) between pmiss
T and pjT for Nj = 1
j
(Nj ≥ 2), where pT is the transverse momentum vector of a jet.
Finally, events are split into lepton flavour (μμ or ee) and jet multiplicity (Nj = 0,
1, ≥2) categories. The resulting event distributions are illustrated along the mZZ T
observable in Extended Data Fig. 4.
Matrix element kinematic discriminants. In events with Nj ≥ 2, we use two MELA
VBF VBF, a2
kinematic discriminants for the VBF process, D2jet and D2jet (ref. 15). Each
of these discriminants consists of a ratio of two matrix elements or, equivalently,
a ratio of event-by-event probability functions, expressed in terms of the
four-momenta of the H boson and the two jets leading in pT. The four-momentum
of the H boson in the 2ℓ2ν channel is approximated by taking the η of the Z → 2ν
candidate, together with its sign, to be the same as that of the Z → 2ℓ candidate.
This approximation is found to be adequate through MC studies.
In both discriminants, one of the matrix elements is always computed for the
SM H-boson production through gluon fusion. The remaining matrix element
VBF
is computed for the SM VBF process in D2jet , so this discriminant improves the
VBF, a2
sensitivity to the EW H-boson production. The D2jet discriminant also computes
the remaining matrix element for the VBF process, but under the a2 HVV coupling
hypothesis instead of the SM scenario. We find that this second discriminant
brings additional sensitivity to SM backgrounds as well as being sensitive to the
a2 HVV coupling hypothesis by design. When anomalous HVV contributions are
considered, the a2 hypothesis used in the computation is replaced by the appropriate
ai hypothesis to optimize the sensitivity for the coupling of interest.
Control regions. As already mentioned, Z + jets events are a background to the
2ℓ2ν signal selection. This can occur because of resolution effects in pmiss
T and
the large cross-section for this process. Because γ + jets and Z + jets have similar
production and pT resolution properties, the Z + jets contributions at high pmiss
miss
T
can be estimated from a γ + jets CR68.
In this CR, all event selection requirements are the same as those on the signal
region, except that the photon replaces the Z → ℓℓ decay. The mZZ T kinematic
variable is constructed using the photon pT in place of pℓℓ T , and mZ in place of mℓℓ.
Only photons in the barrel region (that is, ∣η∣ < 1.44) are considered for Nj < 2 to
eliminate beam halo events that can mimic the γ + pmiss T signature. Reweighting
factors are extracted as a function of photon pT, photon η (when Nj ≥ 2) and the
number of observed pp collisions by matching the corresponding distributions
in γ + jets sidebands at low pmiss
T (<125 GeV) to those of Z + jets sidebands with
the same requirement at each Nj category separately. These reweighting factors
miss
are then applied to the high- pT γ + jets data sample. This technique to estimate
the background from the data is verified using closure tests from the simulation
by comparing the Z + jets and reweighted γ + jets MC distributions over each
kinematic observable.
Contributions to the γ + jets CR from events with genuine, large pmissT from
the Z(→νν)γ, W(→ℓν)γ and W(→ℓν) + jets processes are subtracted in the final
miss
estimate of the instrumental pT background. The first two are estimated from
Articles
simulation, where the Zγ contribution is corrected based on the observed rate of
Z(→ℓℓ)γ. The W + jets contribution is estimated from a single-electron sample
selected with requirements similar to those in the γ + jets CR. Representative
distributions for this estimate are shown in Extended Data Fig. 5.
Processes such as pp → tt and pp → WW, including non-resonant H-boson
contributions, can produce two leptons and large pmissT without a resonant Z → ℓℓ
decay. The kinematic properties of the dilepton system in these processes are
the same for any combination of lepton flavours e or μ. These non-resonant ee
or μμ background processes are therefore estimated from an eμ CR. This CR is
constructed by applying the same requirements used in the signal selection except
for the flavour of the leptons. Data events are reweighted to account for differences
in trigger and reconstruction efficiencies between eμ, and ee or μμ final states.
Representative distributions for this estimate are shown in Extended Data Fig. 6.
A third CR selects trilepton qq → WZ events. These events are used to
constrain the normalization and kinematic properties of the qq → ZZ and
WZ continuum contributions. The Z → ℓℓ candidate is identified from the
opposite-sign, same-flavour lepton pair with mℓℓ closest to mZ, and the value of mℓℓ
for this Z candidate is required to be within 15 GeV of mZ. Trigger requirements are
only placed on this Z candidate. The remaining lepton is identified as the lepton
from the W decay (ℓW). The leading-pT lepton from the Z decay is required to
satisfy pT > 30 GeV, and the remaining leptons are required to satisfy pT > 20 GeV.
Similar to the signal region, requirements are imposed on the unsigned Δϕ
between pmiss
T and other objects in the event so as to reduce contamination from
miss
the Z + jets and qq → Zγ processes: Δϕℓℓ miss > 1.0 between pT and pℓℓ
T for the Z
3ℓ+jets ∑ j j 44. CMS Collaboration. Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description
candidate, Δϕmiss > 2.5 between pmiss
T and p3ℓ
T + p T , and min Δϕ miss > 0.25
between pmiss
T and pjT.
The W-boson transverse mass is√ defined through the vector transverse
momentum of ℓW ( pℓTW) as mℓTW = 2(pℓTW pmiss T − pℓTW · pmiss
T ) , and additional
miss
requirements are imposed on pT and mT to reduce contamination from the
ℓW
Z + jets and qq → Zγ processes further: pmiss
T > 20 GeV, mℓTW > 20 GeV (10 GeV)
miss
for ℓW = μ (e), and A mT + pT > 120 GeV, with A = 1.6 (4/3) for ℓW = μ (e).
ℓW
All other requirements on b-tagged jets, and additional leptons or photons are the
same as those for the signal region.
The events are finally split into categories of the flavour of ℓW (μ or e) and jet
multiplicity (Nj = 0, 1, ≥2), and binned in mWZ
T , defined using the W-boson mass
mW = 80.4 GeV (ref. 59) as
 WZ 2 2 50. Bols, E., Kieseler, J., Verzetti, M., Stoye, M. & Stakia, A. Jet flavour
mT = pℓℓ
T + mℓℓ 2
2
 2
 miss ℓW 
+ pT + pT  + mW 2
 2
 miss 
T + pT
−pℓℓ + pℓTW  .
Event distributions along mWZ
T from this CR are shown in Extended Data Fig. 7.
Likelihood scans. As mentioned in the discussion of data interpretation, the
likelihood is constructed from several multidimensional distributions binned
over the different event categories. Profile likelihood scans over μoff -shell,
μoff-shell, μoff-shell and Γ are shown in Extended Data Fig. 8. WhenFtesting the
V H
effects of anomalous HVV couplings, we perform fits to the data with all BSM
couplings set to zero, except the one being tested, in the model to be fit. Because
the only remaining degree of freedom is the ratio of these BSM couplings to the
SM-like coupling, a1, the probability densities are parametrized in terms of the
effective, signed on-shell cross-section fraction fai for each ai coupling, where the
sign of the phase of ai relative to a1 is absorbed into the definition of fai (ref. 23).
The constraints on ΓH are found to be stable within 1 MeV (0.1 MeV) for the upper
(lower) limits under the different anomalous HVV coupling conditions, and they
are summarized in Extended Data Table 1.
In addition, we provide a simplified illustration of the exclusion of the no
off-shell hypothesis (Extended Data Fig. 9). In this figure, the total numbers of
events in each bin of the likelihood are compared for the 2ℓ2ν and 4ℓ off-shell
regions for the fit of the data to the no off-shell (Nno off-shell) scenario, and the best
fit (Nbest fit). Events can then be rebinned over the ratio Nno off-shell/(Nno off-shell + Nbest fit)
extracted from each bin, and these rebinned distributions can then be compared
at different ΓH values. In particular, we compare the observed and expected event
distributions over this ratio under the best-fit scenario, and the scenario with
no off-shell H-boson production, to illustrate which bins bring most sensitivity
to the exclusion of the no off-shell scenario. The exclusion is noted to be most
apparent from the last two bins displayed in this figure. We note, however, that
the full power of the analysis ultimately comes from the different bins over the
multidimensional likelihood, and that this figure only serves to condense the
information for illustration.
When we perform separate likelihood scans over the three fai fractions, only
the corresponding BSM parameter is allowed to be non-zero in the fit. Profile
likelihood scans for fa2, fa3 and fΛ1 under different fit conditions are shown in
Nature Physics
Extended Data Fig. 8, and a summary of the allowed intervals at 68% and 95% CL
is presented in Extended Data Table 1.
Data availability
Tabulated results are provided in the HEPData record for this analysis38. The
release and preservation of data used by the CMS Collaboration as the basis for
publications is guided by the CMS data preservation, reuse, and open acess policy.
Code availability
The CMS core software is publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/
cms-sw/cmssw).
References
39. CMS Collaboration. The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. JINST 3,
S08004 (2008).
40. CMS Collaboration. The CMS trigger system. JINST 12, P01020 (2017).
41. CMS Collaboration. Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon
reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV. JINST 13,
√
P06015 (2018).
42. CMS Collaboration. Electron and photon reconstruction and identification
with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. JINST 16, P05014 (2021).
43. CMS Collaboration. Description and performance of track and
primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker. JINST 9, P10009 (2014).
with the CMS detector. JINST 12, P10003 (2017).
45. CMS Collaboration. Performance of missing transverse momentum
reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV using the CMS
√
detector. JINST 14, P07004 (2019).
46. CMS Collaboration. Performance of reconstruction and identification of τ
leptons decaying to hadrons and ντ in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV . JINST
√
13, P10005 (2018).
47. CMS Collaboration. Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp
collisions at s = 7 TeV. J. High Energy Phys. 01, 80 (2011).
√
48. Cacciari, M., Salam, G. P. & Soyez, G. FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 72,
1896 (2012).
49. CMS Collaboration. Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data. JINST 15,
P09018 (2020).
classification using DeepJet. JINST 15, P12012 (2020).
51. CMS Collaboration. Missing transverse energy performance of the CMS
detector. JINST 6, 09001 (2011).
52. Frixione, S., Nason, P. & Oleari, C. Matching NLO QCD computations with
parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method. J. High Energy Phys. 11,
70 (2007).
53. Nason, P. & Oleari, C. NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion
matched with shower in POWHEG. J. High Energy Phys. 02, 37 (2010).
54. Bagnaschi, E., Degrassi, G., Slavich, P. & Vicini, A. Higgs production via
gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM. J. High
Energy Phys. 02, 88 (2012).
55. Luisoni, G., Nason, P., Oleari, C. & Tramontano, F. HW±/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at
NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging
within MiNLO. J. High Energy Phys. 10, 83 (2013).
56. Campbell, J. M. & Ellis, R. K. MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC. Nucl.
Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205–206, 10–15 (2010).
57. Campbell, J. M., Ellis, R. K. & Williams, C. Vector boson pair production at
the LHC. J. High Energy Phys. 07, 18 (2011).
58. Campbell, J. M. & Ellis, R. K. Higgs constraints from vector boson fusion and
scattering. J. High Energy Phys. 04, 30 (2015).
59. Particle Data Group. Review of particle physics. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020,
083C01 (2020).
60. Grazzini, M., Kallweit, S. & Wiesemann, M. Fully differential NNLO
computations with MATRIX. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 537 (2018).
61. Frederix, R. & Frixione, S. Merging meets matching in MC@NLO. J. High
Energy Phys. 12, 61 (2012).
62. Alwall, J. et al. Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of
parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions. Eur. Phys. J. C 53,
473–500 (2008).
63. Sjöstrand, T. et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2. Comput. Phys. Commun.
191, 159–177 (2015).
64. CMS Collaboration. Event generator tunes obtained from underlying
event and multiparton scattering measurements. Eur. Phys. J. C 76,
155 (2016).
65. CMS Collaboration. Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8
tunes from underlying-event measurements. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 4 (2020).
66. Ball, R. D. et al. Parton distributions for the LHC Run II. J. High Energy Phys.
04, 40 (2015).
67. Agostinelli, S.et al. GEANT4—a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A
506, 250–303 (2003).
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Nature Physics
68. CMS Collaboration. Search for physics beyond the standard model in events
with a Z boson, jets, and missing transverse energy in pp collisions at
s = 7 TeV. Phys. Lett. B 716, 260–284 (2012).
√
Acknowledgements
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent
performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN
and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort.
In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the
Worldwide LHC Computing Grid and other centres for delivering so effectively
the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the
enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC, the CMS detector,
and the supporting computing infrastructure provided by the following funding
agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES,
FAPERJ, FAPERGS and FAPESP (Brazil); MES and BNSF (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS,
MoST and NSFC (China); MINCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF
(Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy
of Finland, MEC and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG
and HGF (Germany); GSRI (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India);
IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES
(Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT,
LNS, SEP and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand);
PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON,
RosAtom, RAS, RFBR and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); MCIN/AEI and PCTI
(Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei);
ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey);
NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (United States). Individuals
have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research
Council and Horizon 2020 Grant under contracts nos. 675440, 724704, 752730,
758316, 765710, 824093, 884104 and COST Action CA16108 (European Union); the
Leventis Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt
Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation
à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap
voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and
FWO (Belgium) under the ‘Excellence of Science—EOS’ – be.h project no. 30820817;
the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, no. Z191100007219010; the
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), under Germany’s Excellence Strategy—EXC 2121
‘Quantum Universe’—390833306, and under project no. 400140256—GRK2497; the
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Articles
Lendület (‘Momentum’) Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, NKFIA
research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786 and 129058
(Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research (India); the Latvian Council
of Science; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science
Center, contracts Opus 2014/15/B/ST2/03998 and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861 (Poland); the
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, grant no. CEECIND/01334/2018 (Portugal); the
National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education (projects nos. 0723-2020-0041 and FSWW-2020-
0008) (Russia); MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, ERDF ‘a way of making Europe’,
and the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de
Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant no. MDM-2017-0765 and Programa Severo Ochoa
del Principado de Asturias (Spain); the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); the
Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University
and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project
(Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation;
the Welch Foundation, contract no. C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (United
States). The copyright of this Article is held by CERN, for the benefit of the CMS
Collaboration.
Author contributions
All authors have contributed to the publication, being variously involved in the design
and the construction of the detectors, in writing software, calibrating subsystems,
operating the detectors and acquiring data, and finally analysing the processed data.
The CMS Collaboration members discussed and approved the scientific results. The
manuscript was prepared by a subgroup of authors appointed by the collaboration and
subject to an internal collaboration-wide review process. All authors reviewed and
approved the final version of the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Extended data is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-022-01682-0.
Peer review information Nature Physics thanks Daniel de Florian, William Murray and
the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Articles Nature Physics

The CMS Collaboration

A. Tumasyan1, W. Adam2, J. W. Andrejkovic2, T. Bergauer2, S. Chatterjee2, K. Damanakis2,

M. Dragicevic2, A. Escalante Del Valle2, R. Frühwirth2,216, M. Jeitler2,216, N. Krammer2, L. Lechner2,
D. Liko2, I. Mikulec2, P. Paulitsch2, F. M. Pitters2, J. Schieck2,216, R. Schöfbeck2, D. Schwarz2, S. Templ2,
W. Waltenberger2, C.-E. Wulz2,216, V. Chekhovsky3, A. Litomin3, V. Makarenko3, M. R. Darwish4,217,
E. A. De Wolf4, T. Janssen4, T. Kello4,218, A. Lelek4, H. Rejeb Sfar4, P. Van Mechelen4, S. Van Putte4,
N. Van Remortel4, E. S. Bols5, J. D’Hondt5, A. De Moor5, M. Delcourt5, H. El Faham5, S. Lowette5,
S. Moortgat5, A. Morton5, D. Müller5, A. R. Sahasransu5, S. Tavernier5, W. Van Doninck5,
D. Vannerom5, D. Beghin6, B. Bilin6, B. Clerbaux6, G. De Lentdecker6, L. Favart6, A. K. Kalsi6, K. Lee6,
M. Mahdavikhorrami6, I. Makarenko6, S. Paredes6, L. Pétré6, A. Popov6, N. Postiau6, E. Starling6,
L. Thomas6, M. Vanden Bemden6, C. Vander Velde6, P. Vanlaer6, T. Cornelis7, D. Dobur7, J. Knolle7,
L. Lambrecht7, G. Mestdach7, M. Niedziela7, C. Rendón7, C. Roskas7, A. Samalan7, K. Skovpen7,
M. Tytgat7, N. Van Den Bossche7, B. Vermassen7, L. Wezenbeek7, A. Benecke8, A. Bethani8, G. Bruno8,
F. Bury8, C. Caputo8, P. David8, C. Delaere8, I. S. Donertas8, A. Giammanco8, K. Jaffel8, Sa. Jain8,
V. Lemaitre8, K. Mondal8, J. Prisciandaro8, A. Taliercio8, M. Teklishyn8, T. T. Tran8, P. Vischia8,
S. Wertz8, G. A. Alves9, C. Hensel9, A. Moraes9, P. Rebello Teles9, W. L. Aldá Júnior10,
M. Alves Gallo Pereira10, M. Barroso Ferreira Filho10, H. Brandao Malbouisson10, W. Carvalho10,
J. Chinellato10,219, E. M. Da Costa10, G. G. Da Silveira10,220, D. De Jesus Damiao10, V. Dos Santos Sousa10,
S. Fonseca De Souza10, C. Mora Herrera10, K. Mota Amarilo10, L. Mundim10, H. Nogima10, A. Santoro10,
S. M. Silva Do Amaral10, A. Sznajder10, M. Thiel10, F. Torres Da Silva De Araujo10,221, A. Vilela Pereira10,
C. A. Bernardes11,220, L. Calligaris11, T. R. Fernandez Perez Tomei11, E. M. Gregores11,12, D. S. Lemos11,12,
P. G. Mercadante11,12, S. F. Novaes11,12, Sandra S. Padula11,12, A. Aleksandrov13, G. Antchev13,
R. Hadjiiska13, P. Iaydjiev13, M. Misheva13, M. Rodozov13, M. Shopova13, G. Sultanov13, A. Dimitrov14,
T. Ivanov14, L. Litov14, B. Pavlov14, P. Petkov14, A. Petrov14, T. Cheng15, T. Javaid15,222, M. Mittal15,
H. Wang15,218, L. Yuan15, M. Ahmad16, G. Bauer16, C. Dozen16,223, Z. Hu16, J. Martins16,224, Y. Wang16,
K. Yi16,225,226, E. Chapon17, G. M. Chen17,222, H. S. Chen17,222, M. Chen17, F. Iemmi17, A. Kapoor17, D. Leggat17,
H. Liao17, Z.-A. Liu17,222, V. Milosevic17, F. Monti17, R. Sharma17, J. Tao17, J. Thomas-Wilsker17, J. Wang17,
H. Zhang17, J. Zhao17, A. Agapitos18, Y. An18, Y. Ban18, C. Chen18, A. Levin18, Q. Li18, X. Lyu18, Y. Mao18,
S. J. Qian18, D. Wang18, J. Xiao18, H. Yang18, M. Lu19, Z. You19, X. Gao20,218, H. Okawa20, Y. Zhang20,
Z. Lin21, M. Xiao21, C. Avila22, A. Cabrera22, C. Florez22, J. Fraga22, J. Mejia Guisao23, F. Ramirez23,
J. D. Ruiz Alvarez23, D. Giljanovic24, N. Godinovic24, D. Lelas24, I. Puljak24, Z. Antunovic25, M. Kovac25,
T. Sculac25, V. Brigljevic26, D. Ferencek26, D. Majumder26, M. Roguljic26, A. Starodumov26,227, T. Susa26,
A. Attikis27, K. Christoforou27, G. Kole27, M. Kolosova27, S. Konstantinou27, J. Mousa27, C. Nicolaou27,
F. Ptochos27, P. A. Razis27, H. Rykaczewski27, H. Saka27, M. Finger28,228, M. Finger Jr.28,228, A. Kveton28,
E. Ayala29, E. Carrera Jarrin30, H. Abdalla31,229, E. Salama31,230,231, M. A. Mahmoud32, Y. Mohammed32,
S. Bhowmik33, R. K. Dewanjee33, K. Ehataht33, M. Kadastik33, S. Nandan33, C. Nielsen33, J. Pata33,
M. Raidal33, L. Tani33, C. Veelken33, P. Eerola34, H. Kirschenmann34, K. Osterberg34, M. Voutilainen34,
S. Bharthuar35, E. Brücken35, F. Garcia35, J. Havukainen35, M. S. Kim35, R. Kinnunen35, T. Lampén35,
K. Lassila-Perini35, S. Lehti35, T. Lindén35, M. Lotti35, L. Martikainen35, M. Myllymäki35, J. Ott35,
M. M. Rantanen35, H. Siikonen35, E. Tuominen35, J. Tuominiemi35, P. Luukka36, H. Petrow36, T. Tuuva36,
C. Amendola37, M. Besancon37, F. Couderc37, M. Dejardin37, D. Denegri37, J. L. Faure37, F. Ferri37,
S. Ganjour37, P. Gras37, G. Hamel de Monchenault37, P. Jarry37, B. Lenzi37, J. Malcles37, J. Rander37,

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles
A. Rosowsky37, M. Ö. Sahin37, A. Savoy-Navarro37,232, P. Simkina37, M. Titov37, G. B. Yu37, S. Ahuja38,
F. Beaudette38, M. Bonanomi38, A. Buchot Perraguin38, P. Busson38, A. Cappati38, C. Charlot38,
O. Davignon38, B. Diab38, G. Falmagne38, B. A. Fontana Santos Alves38, S. Ghosh38,
R. Granier de Cassagnac38, A. Hakimi38, I. Kucher38, J. Motta38, M. Nguyen38, C. Ochando38,
P. Paganini38, J. Rembser38, R. Salerno38, U. Sarkar38, J. B. Sauvan38, Y. Sirois38, A. Tarabini38, A. Zabi38,
A. Zghiche38, J.-L. Agram39,233, J. Andrea39, D. Apparu39, D. Bloch39, G. Bourgatte39, J.-M. Brom39,
E. C. Chabert39, C. Collard39, D. Darej39, J.-C. Fontaine39,233, U. Goerlach39, C. Grimault39,
A.-C. Le Bihan39, E. Nibigira39, P. Van Hove39, E. Asilar40, S. Beauceron40, C. Bernet40, G. Boudoul40,
C. Camen40, A. Carle40, N. Chanon40, D. Contardo40, P. Depasse40, H. El Mamouni40, J. Fay40,
S. Gascon40, M. Gouzevitch40, B. Ille40, I. B. Laktineh40, H. Lattaud40, A. Lesauvage40, M. Lethuillier40,
L. Mirabito40, S. Perries40, K. Shchablo40, V. Sordini40, G. Touquet40, M. Vander Donckt40, S. Viret40,
I. Lomidze41, T. Toriashvili41,234, Z. Tsamalaidze41,228, V. Botta42, L. Feld42, K. Klein42, M. Lipinski42,
D. Meuser42, A. Pauls42, N. Röwert42, J. Schulz42, M. Teroerde42, A. Dodonova43, D. Eliseev43,
M. Erdmann43, P. Fackeldey43, B. Fischer43, T. Hebbeker43, K. Hoepfner43, F. Ivone43, L. Mastrolorenzo43,
M. Merschmeyer43, A. Meyer43, G. Mocellin43, S. Mondal43, S. Mukherjee43, D. Noll43, A. Novak43,
A. Pozdnyakov43, Y. Rath43, H. Reithler43, A. Schmidt43, S. C. Schuler43, A. Sharma43, L. Vigilante43,
S. Wiedenbeck43, S. Zaleski43, C. Dziwok44, G. Flügge44, W. Haj Ahmad44,235, O. Hlushchenko44,
T. Kress44, A. Nowack44, O. Pooth44, D. Roy44, A. Stahl44,236, T. Ziemons44, A. Zotz44,
H. Aarup Petersen45, M. Aldaya Martin45, P. Asmuss45, S. Baxter45, M. Bayatmakou45, O. Behnke45,
A. Bermúdez Martínez45, S. Bhattacharya45, A. A. Bin Anuar45, F. Blekman45,237, K. Borras45,238,
D. Brunner45, A. Campbell45, A. Cardini45, C. Cheng45, F. Colombina45, S. Consuegra Rodríguez45,
G. Correia Silva45, M. De Silva45, L. Didukh45, G. Eckerlin45, D. Eckstein45, L. I. Estevez Banos45,
O. Filatov45, E. Gallo45,237, A. Geiser45, A. Giraldi45, G. Greau45, A. Grohsjean45, M. Guthoff45,
A. Jafari45,239, N. Z. Jomhari45, H. Jung45, A. Kasem45,238, M. Kasemann45, H. Kaveh45, C. Kleinwort45,
R. Kogler45, D. Krücker45, W. Lange45, K. Lipka45, W. Lohmann45,240, R. Mankel45,
I.-A. Melzer-Pellmann45, M. Mendizabal Morentin45, J. Metwally45, A. B. Meyer45, M. Meyer45,
J. Mnich45, A. Mussgiller45, A. Nürnberg45, Y. Otarid45, D. Pérez Adán45, D. Pitzl45, A. Raspereza45,
B. Ribeiro Lopes45, J. Rübenach45, A. Saggio45, A. Saibel45, M. Savitskyi45, M. Scham45,241, V. Scheurer45,
S. Schnake45, P. Schütze45, C. Schwanenberger45,237, M. Shchedrolosiev45, R. E. Sosa Ricardo45,
D. Stafford45, N. Tonon45, M. Van De Klundert45, F. Vazzoler45, R. Walsh45, D. Walter45, Q. Wang45,
Y. Wen45, K. Wichmann45, L. Wiens45, C. Wissing45, S. Wuchterl45, R. Aggleton46, S. Albrecht46,
S. Bein46, L. Benato46, P. Connor46, K. De Leo46, M. Eich46, K. El Morabit46, F. Feindt46, A. Fröhlich46,
C. Garbers46, E. Garutti46, P. Gunnellini46, M. Hajheidari46, J. Haller46, A. Hinzmann46, G. Kasieczka46,
R. Klanner46, T. Kramer46, V. Kutzner46, J. Lange46, T. Lange46, A. Lobanov46, A. Malara46, C. Matthies46,
A. Mehta46, L. Moureaux46, A. Nigamova46, K. J. Pena Rodriguez46, M. Rieger46, O. Rieger46,
P. Schleper46, M. Schröder46, J. Schwandt46, J. Sonneveld46, H. Stadie46, G. Steinbrück46, A. Tews46,
I. Zoi46, J. Bechtel47, S. Brommer47, M. Burkart47, E. Butz47, R. Caspart47, T. Chwalek47, W. De Boer47,320,
A. Dierlamm47, A. Droll47, N. Faltermann47, M. Giffels47, J. O. Gosewisch47, A. Gottmann47,
F. Hartmann47,236, C. Heidecker47, U. Husemann47, P. Keicher47, R. Koppenhöfer47, S. Maier47, S. Mitra47,
Th. Müller47, M. Neukum47, G. Quast47, K. Rabbertz47, J. Rauser47, D. Savoiu47, M. Schnepf47, D. Seith47,
I. Shvetsov47, H. J. Simonis47, R. Ulrich47, J. Van Der Linden47, R. F. Von Cube47, M. Wassmer47,
M. Weber47, S. Wieland47, R. Wolf47, S. Wozniewski47, S. Wunsch47, G. Anagnostou48, G. Daskalakis48,
A. Kyriakis48, D. Loukas48, A. Stakia48, M. Diamantopoulou49, D. Karasavvas49, P. Kontaxakis49,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Articles Nature Physics

C. K. Koraka49, A. Manousakis-Katsikakis49, A. Panagiotou49, I. Papavergou49, N. Saoulidou49,

K. Theofilatos49, E. Tziaferi49, K. Vellidis49, E. Vourliotis49, G. Bakas50, K. Kousouris50,
I. Papakrivopoulos50, G. Tsipolitis50, A. Zacharopoulou50, K. Adamidis51, I. Bestintzanos51,
I. Evangelou51, C. Foudas51, P. Gianneios51, P. Katsoulis51, P. Kokkas51, N. Manthos51, I. Papadopoulos51,
J. Strologas51, M. Csanad52, K. Farkas52, M. M. A. Gadallah52,242, S. Lökös52,243, P. Major52, K. Mandal52,
G. Pasztor52, A. J. Rádl52, O. Surányi52, G. I. Veres52, M. Bartók53,244, G. Bencze53, C. Hajdu53,
D. Horvath53,245,246, F. Sikler53, V. Veszpremi53, S. Czellar54, D. Fasanella54, F. Fienga54, J. Karancsi54,244,
J. Molnar54, Z. Szillasi54, D. Teyssier54, P. Raics55, Z. L. Trocsanyi55,247, B. Ujvari55,248, T. Csorgo56,249,
F. Nemes56,249, T. Novak56, S. Bahinipati57,250, C. Kar57, P. Mal57, T. Mishra57,
V. K. Muraleedharan Nair Bindhu57,251, A. Nayak57,251, P. Saha57, N. Sur57, S. K. Swain57, D. Vats57,251,
S. Bansal58, S. B. Beri58, V. Bhatnagar58, G. Chaudhary58, S. Chauhan58, N. Dhingra58,252, R. Gupta,
A. Kaur58, H. Kaur58, M. Kaur58, P. Kumari58, M. Meena58, K. Sandeep58, J. B. Singh58,253, A. K. Virdi58,
A. Ahmed59, A. Bhardwaj59, B. C. Choudhary59, M. Gola59, S. Keshri59, A. Kumar59, M. Naimuddin59,
P. Priyanka59, K. Ranjan59, S. Saumya59, A. Shah59, M. Bharti60,254, R. Bhattacharya60, S. Bhattacharya60,
D. Bhowmik60, S. Dutta60, S. Dutta60, B. Gomber60,255, M. Maity60,256, P. Palit60, P. K. Rout60, G. Saha60,
B. Sahu60, S. Sarkar60, M. Sharan60, P. K. Behera61, S. C. Behera61, P. Kalbhor61, J. R. Komaragiri61,257,
D. Kumar61,257, A. Muhammad61, L. Panwar61,257, R. Pradhan61, P. R. Pujahari61, A. Sharma61, A. K. Sikdar61,
P. C. Tiwari61,257, K. Naskar62,258, T. Aziz63, S. Dugad63, M. Kumar63, G. B. Mohanty63, S. Banerjee64,
R. Chudasama64, M. Guchait64, S. Karmakar64, S. Kumar64, G. Majumder64, K. Mazumdar64,
S. Mukherjee64, A. Alpana65, S. Dube65, B. Kansal65, A. Laha65, S. Pandey65, A. Rastogi65, S. Sharma65,
H. Bakhshiansohi66,259,260, E. Khazaie66,260, M. Zeinali66,261, S. Chenarani67,262, S. M. Etesami67,
M. Khakzad67, M. Mohammadi Najafabadi67, M. Grunewald68, M. Abbrescia69,70, R. Aly69,70,263,
C. Aruta69,70, A. Colaleo69, D. Creanza69,71, N. De Filippis69,71, M. De Palma69,70, A. Di Florio69,70,
A. Di Pilato69,70, W. Elmetenawee69,70, F. Errico69,70, L. Fiore69, G. Iaselli69,71, M. Ince69,70, S. Lezki69,70,
G. Maggi69,71, M. Maggi69, I. Margjeka69,70, V. Mastrapasqua69,70, S. My69,70, S. Nuzzo69,70,
A. Pellecchia69,70, A. Pompili69,70, G. Pugliese69,71, D. Ramos69, A. Ranieri69, G. Selvaggi69,70,
L. Silvestris69, F. M. Simone69,70, Ü. Sözbilir69, R. Venditti69, P. Verwilligen69, G. Abbiendi72,
C. Battilana72,73, D. Bonacorsi72,73, L. Borgonovi72, L. Brigliadori72, R. Campanini72,73, P. Capiluppi72,73,
A. Castro72,73, F. R. Cavallo72, C. Ciocca72, M. Cuffiani72,73, G. M. Dallavalle72, T. Diotalevi72,73, F. Fabbri72,
A. Fanfani72,73, P. Giacomelli72, L. Giommi72,73, C. Grandi72, L. Guiducci72,73, S. Lo Meo72,264, L. Lunerti72,73,
S. Marcellini72, G. Masetti72, F. L. Navarria72,73, A. Perrotta72, F. Primavera72,73, A. M. Rossi72,73,
T. Rovelli72,73, G. P. Siroli72,73, S. Albergo74,75,265, S. Costa74,75,265, A. Di Mattia74, R. Potenza74,75,
A. Tricomi74,75,265, C. Tuve74,75, G. Barbagli76, A. Cassese76, R. Ceccarelli76,77, V. Ciulli76,77, C. Civinini76,
R. D’Alessandro76,77, E. Focardi76,77, G. Latino76,77, P. Lenzi76,77, M. Lizzo76,77, M. Meschini76, S. Paoletti76,
R. Seidita76,77, G. Sguazzoni76, L. Viliani76, L. Benussi78, S. Bianco78, D. Piccolo78, M. Bozzo79,80, F. Ferro79,
R. Mulargia79, E. Robutti79, S. Tosi79,80, A. Benaglia81, G. Boldrini81,82, F. Brivio81,82, F. Cetorelli81,82,
F. De Guio81,82, M. E. Dinardo81,82, P. Dini81, S. Gennai81, A. Ghezzi81,82, P. Govoni81,82, L. Guzzi81,82,
M. T. Lucchini81,82, M. Malberti81, S. Malvezzi81, A. Massironi81, D. Menasce81, L. Moroni81,
M. Paganoni81,82, D. Pedrini81, B. S. Pinolini81,82, S. Ragazzi81,82, N. Redaelli81, T. Tabarelli de Fatis81,82,
D. Valsecchi81,82,236, D. Zuolo81,82, S. Buontempo83, F. Carnevali83,84, N. Cavallo83,85, A. De Iorio83,84,
F. Fabozzi83,85, A. O. M. Iorio83,84, L. Lista83,84,266, S. Meola83,86,236, P. Paolucci83,236, B. Rossi83,
C. Sciacca83,84, P. Azzi87, N. Bacchetta87, D. Bisello87,88, P. Bortignon87, A. Bragagnolo87,88, R. Carlin87,88,
P. Checchia87, T. Dorigo87, U. Dosselli87, F. Gasparini87,88, U. Gasparini87,88, G. Grosso89, L. Layer87,267,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Nature Physics Articles
E. Lusiani89, M. Margoni87,88, F. Marini89, A. T. Meneguzzo87,88, J. Pazzini87,88, P. Ronchese87,88,
R. Rossin87,88, F. Simonetto87,88, G. Strong87, M. Tosi87,88, H. Yarar87,88, M. Zanetti87,88, P. Zotto87,88,
A. Zucchetta87,88, G. Zumerle87,88, C. Aimè90,91, A. Braghieri90, S. Calzaferri90,91, D. Fiorina90,91,
P. Montagna90,91, S. P. Ratti90,91, V. Re90, C. Riccardi90,91, P. Salvini90, I. Vai90, P. Vitulo90,91, P. Asenov92,268,
G. M. Bilei92, D. Ciangottini92,93, L. Fanò92,93, M. Magherini92, G. Mantovani92,93, V. Mariani92,93,
M. Menichelli92, F. Moscatelli92,268, A. Piccinelli92,93, M. Presilla92,93, A. Rossi92,93, A. Santocchia92,93,
D. Spiga92, T. Tedeschi92,93, P. Azzurri94, G. Bagliesi94, V. Bertacchi94,95, L. Bianchini94, T. Boccali94,
E. Bossini94,96, R. Castaldi94, M. A. Ciocci94,96, V. D’Amante94,97, R. Dell’Orso94, M. R. Di Domenico94,97,
S. Donato94, A. Giassi94, F. Ligabue94,95, E. Manca94,95, G. Mandorli94,95, D. Matos Figueiredo,
A. Messineo94,96, M. Musich94, F. Palla94, S. Parolia94,96, G. Ramirez-Sanchez94,95, A. Rizzi94,96,
G. Rolandi94,95, S. Roy Chowdhury94,95, A. Scribano94, N. Shafiei94,96, P. Spagnolo94, R. Tenchini94,
G. Tonelli94,96, N. Turini94,97, A. Venturi94, P. G. Verdini94, P. Barria98, M. Campana98,99, F. Cavallari98,
D. Del Re98,99, E. Di Marco98, M. Diemoz98, E. Longo98,99, P. Meridiani98, G. Organtini98,99, F. Pandolfi98,
R. Paramatti98,99, C. Quaranta98,99, S. Rahatlou98,99, C. Rovelli98, F. Santanastasio98,99, L. Soffi98,
R. Tramontano98,99, N. Amapane100,101, R. Arcidiacono100,102, S. Argiro100,101, M. Arneodo100,102,
N. Bartosik100, R. Bellan100,101, A. Bellora100,101, J. Berenguer Antequera100,101, C. Biino100, N. Cartiglia100,
M. Costa100,101, R. Covarelli100,101, N. Demaria100, M. Grippo100,101, B. Kiani100,101, F. Legger100, C. Mariotti100,
S. Maselli100, A. Mecca100,101, E. Migliore100,101, E. Monteil100,101, M. Monteno100, M. M. Obertino100,101,
G. Ortona100, L. Pacher100,101, N. Pastrone100, M. Pelliccioni100, M. Ruspa100,102, K. Shchelina100,
F. Siviero100,101, V. Sola100, A. Solano100,101, D. Soldi100,101, A. Staiano100, M. Tornago100,101, D. Trocino100,
G. Umoret100,101, A. Vagnerini100,101, S. Belforte103, V. Candelise103,104, M. Casarsa103, F. Cossutti103,
A. Da Rold103,104, G. Della Ricca103,104, G. Sorrentino103,104, S. Dogra105, C. Huh105, B. Kim105, D. H. Kim105,
G. N. Kim105, J. Kim105, J. Lee105, S. W. Lee105, C. S. Moon105, Y. D. Oh105, S. I. Pak105, S. Sekmen105,
Y. C. Yang105, H. Kim106, D. H. Moon106, B. Francois107, T. J. Kim107, J. Park107, S. Cho108, S. Choi108,
B. Hong108, K. Lee108, K. S. Lee108, J. Lim108, J. Park108, S. K. Park108, J. Yoo108, J. Goh109, A. Gurtu109,
H. S. Kim110, Y. Kim110, J. Almond111, J. H. Bhyun111, J. Choi111, S. Jeon111, J. Kim111, J. S. Kim111, S. Ko111,
H. Kwon111, H. Lee111, S. Lee111, B. H. Oh111, M. Oh111, S. B. Oh111, H. Seo111, U. K. Yang111, I. Yoon111, W. Jang112,
D. Y. Kang112, Y. Kang112, S. Kim112, B. Ko112, J. S. H. Lee112, Y. Lee112, J. A. Merlin112, I. C. Park112, Y. Roh112,
M. S. Ryu112, D. Song112, I. J. Watson112, S. Yang112, S. Ha113, H. D. Yoo113, M. Choi114, H. Lee114, Y. Lee114,
I. Yu114, T. Beyrouthy115, Y. Maghrbi115, K. Dreimanis116, V. Veckalns116,269, M. Ambrozas117,
A. Carvalho Antunes De Oliveira117, A. Juodagalvis117, A. Rinkevicius117, G. Tamulaitis117,
N. Bin Norjoharuddeen118, S. Y. Hoh118,270, Z. Zolkapli118, J. F. Benitez119, A. Castaneda Hernandez119,
H. A. Encinas Acosta119, L. G. Gallegos Maríñez119, M. León Coello119, J. A. Murillo Quijada119,
A. Sehrawat119, L. Valencia Palomo119, G. Ayala120, H. Castilla-Valdez120, E. De La Cruz-Burelo120,
I. Heredia-De La Cruz120,271, R. Lopez-Fernandez120, C. A. Mondragon Herrera120, D. A. Perez Navarro120,
R. Reyes-Almanza120, A. Sánchez Hernández120, S. Carrillo Moreno121, C. Oropeza Barrera121,
F. Vazquez Valencia121, I. Pedraza122, H. A. Salazar Ibarguen122, C. Uribe Estrada122, I. Bubanja123,
J. Mijuskovic123,272, N. Raicevic123, D. Krofcheck124, P. H. Butler125, A. Ahmad126, M. I. Asghar126,
A. Awais126, M. I. M. Awan126, M. Gul126, H. R. Hoorani126, W. A. Khan126, M. A. Shah126, M. Shoaib126,
M. Waqas126, V. Avati127, L. Grzanka127, M. Malawski127, H. Bialkowska128, M. Bluj128, B. Boimska128,
M. Górski128, M. Kazana128, M. Szleper128, P. Zalewski128, K. Bunkowski129, K. Doroba129, A. Kalinowski129,
M. Konecki129, J. Krolikowski129, M. Araujo130, P. Bargassa130, D. Bastos130, A. Boletti130, P. Faccioli130,
M. Gallinaro130, J. Hollar130, N. Leonardo130, T. Niknejad130, M. Pisano130, J. Seixas130, O. Toldaiev130,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Articles Nature Physics

J. Varela130, S. Afanasiev131, D. Budkouski131, I. Golutvin131, I. Gorbunov131, V. Karjavine131, V. Korenkov131,

A. Lanev131, A. Malakhov131, V. Matveev131,273,274, V. Palichik131, V. Perelygin131, M. Savina131, V. Shalaev131,
S. Shmatov131, S. Shulha131, V. Smirnov131, O. Teryaev131, N. Voytishin131, B. S. Yuldashev131,275,
A. Zarubin131, I. Zhizhin131, G. Gavrilov132, V. Golovtcov132, Y. Ivanov132, V. Kim132,276, E. Kuznetsova132,277,
V. Murzin132, V. Oreshkin132, I. Smirnov132, D. Sosnov132, V. Sulimov132, L. Uvarov132, S. Volkov132,
A. Vorobyev132, Yu. Andreev133, A. Dermenev133, S. Gninenko133, N. Golubev133, A. Karneyeu133,
D. Kirpichnikov133, M. Kirsanov133, N. Krasnikov133, A. Pashenkov133, G. Pivovarov133, A. Toropin133,
T. Aushev134, V. Epshteyn135, V. Gavrilov135, N. Lychkovskaya135, A. Nikitenko135,278, V. Popov135,
A. Stepennov135, M. Toms135, E. Vlasov135, A. Zhokin135, O. Bychkova136, R. Chistov136,279, M. Danilov136,279,
A. Oskin136, P. Parygin136, S. Polikarpov136,279, V. Andreev137, M. Azarkin137, I. Dremin137, M. Kirakosyan137,
A. Terkulov137, A. Belyaev138, E. Boos138, V. Bunichev138, M. Dubinin138,280, L. Dudko138, A. Ershov138,
V. Klyukhin138, O. Kodolova138, I. Lokhtin138, S. Obraztsov138, M. Perfilov138, S. Petrushanko138,
V. Savrin138, V. Blinov139,281, T. Dimova139,281, L. Kardapoltsev139,281, A. Kozyrev139,281, I. Ovtin139,281,
O. Radchenko139,281, Y. Skovpen139,281, I. Azhgirey140, I. Bayshev140, D. Elumakhov140, V. Kachanov140,
D. Konstantinov140, P. Mandrik140, V. Petrov140, R. Ryutin140, S. Slabospitskii140, A. Sobol140, S. Troshin140,
N. Tyurin140, A. Uzunian140, A. Volkov140, A. Babaev141, V. Okhotnikov141, V. Borshch142, V. Ivanchenko142,
E. Tcherniaev142, P. Adzic143,282, M. Dordevic143, P. Milenovic143, J. Milosevic143, M. Aguilar-Benitez144,
J. Alcaraz Maestre144, A. Álvarez Fernández144, I. Bachiller144, M. Barrio Luna144, Cristina F. Bedoya144,
C. A. Carrillo Montoya144, M. Cepeda144, M. Cerrada144, N. Colino144, B. De La Cruz144,
A. Delgado Peris144, J. P. Fernández Ramos144, J. Flix144, M. C. Fouz144, O. Gonzalez Lopez144,
S. Goy Lopez144, J. M. Hernandez144, M. I. Josa144, J. León Holgado144, D. Moran144, Á. Navarro Tobar144,
C. Perez Dengra144, A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo144, J. Puerta Pelayo144, I. Redondo144, L. Romero144,
S. Sánchez Navas144, L. Urda Gómez144, C. Willmott144, J. F. de Trocóniz145, B. Alvarez Gonzalez146,
J. Cuevas146, J. Fernandez Menendez146, S. Folgueras146, I. Gonzalez Caballero146,
J. R. González Fernández146, E. Palencia Cortezon146, C. Ramón Álvarez146, V. Rodríguez Bouza146,
A. Soto Rodríguez146, A. Trapote146, N. Trevisani146, C. Vico Villalba146, J. A. Brochero Cifuentes147,
I. J. Cabrillo147, A. Calderon147, J. Duarte Campderros147, M. Fernandez147, C. Fernandez Madrazo147,
P. J. Fernández Manteca147, A. García Alonso147, G. Gomez147, C. Martinez Rivero147,
P. Martinez Ruiz del Arbol147, F. Matorras147, P. Matorras Cuevas147, J. Piedra Gomez147, C. Prieels147,
A. Ruiz-Jimeno147, L. Scodellaro147, I. Vila147, J. M. Vizan Garcia147, M. K. Jayananda148,
B. Kailasapathy148,283, D. U. J. Sonnadara148, D. D. C. Wickramarathna148, W. G. D. Dharmaratna149,
K. Liyanage149, N. Perera149, N. Wickramage149, T. K. Aarrestad150, D. Abbaneo150, J. Alimena150,
E. Auffray150, G. Auzinger150, J. Baechler150, P. Baillon150,321, D. Barney150, J. Bendavid150, M. Bianco150,
A. Bocci150, C. Caillol150, T. Camporesi150, M. Capeans Garrido150, G. Cerminara150, N. Chernyavskaya150,
S. S. Chhibra150, S. Choudhury150, M. Cipriani150, L. Cristella150, D. d’Enterria150, A. Dabrowski150,
A. David150, A. De Roeck150, M. M. Defranchis150, M. Deile150, M. Dobson150, M. Dünser150, N. Dupont150,
A. Elliott-Peisert150, F. Fallavollita150,284, A. Florent150, L. Forthomme150, G. Franzoni150, W. Funk150,
S. Ghosh150, S. Giani150, D. Gigi150, K. Gill150, F. Glege150, L. Gouskos150, E. Govorkova150, M. Haranko150,
J. Hegeman150, V. Innocente150, T. James150, P. Janot150, J. Kaspar150, J. Kieseler150, M. Komm150,
N. Kratochwil150, C. Lange150, S. Laurila150, P. Lecoq150, A. Lintuluoto150, C. Lourenço150, B. Maier150,
L. Malgeri150, S. Mallios150, M. Mannelli150, A. C. Marini150, F. Meijers150, S. Mersi150, E. Meschi150,
F. Moortgat150, M. Mulders150, S. Orfanelli150, L. Orsini150, F. Pantaleo150, E. Perez150, M. Peruzzi150,
A. Petrilli150, G. Petrucciani150, A. Pfeiffer150, M. Pierini150, D. Piparo150, M. Pitt150, H. Qu150, T. Quast150,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Nature Physics Articles
D. Rabady150, A. Racz150, G. Reales Gutiérrez150, M. Rovere150, H. Sakulin150, J. Salfeld-Nebgen150,
S. Scarfi150, C. Schwick150, M. Selvaggi150, A. Sharma150, P. Silva150, W. Snoeys150, P. Sphicas150,285,
S. Summers150, K. Tatar150, V. R. Tavolaro150, D. Treille150, P. Tropea150, A. Tsirou150, J. Wanczyk150,286,
K. A. Wozniak150, W. D. Zeuner150, L. Caminada151,287, A. Ebrahimi151, W. Erdmann151, R. Horisberger151,
Q. Ingram151, H. C. Kaestli151, D. Kotlinski151, U. Langenegger151, M. Missiroli151,287, L. Noehte151,287,
T. Rohe151, K. Androsov152,286, M. Backhaus152, P. Berger152, A. Calandri152, A. De Cosa152, G. Dissertori152,
M. Dittmar152, M. Donegà152, C. Dorfer152, F. Eble152, K. Gedia152, F. Glessgen152, T. A. Gómez Espinosa152,
C. Grab152, D. Hits152, W. Lustermann152, A.-M. Lyon152, R. A. Manzoni152, L. Marchese152,
C. Martin Perez152, M. T. Meinhard152, F. Nessi-Tedaldi152, J. Niedziela152, F. Pauss152, V. Perovic152,
S. Pigazzini152, M. G. Ratti152, M. Reichmann152, C. Reissel152, T. Reitenspiess152, B. Ristic152, D. Ruini152,
D. A. Sanz Becerra152, V. Stampf152, J. Steggemann152,286, R. Wallny152, C. Amsler153,288, P. Bärtschi153,
C. Botta153, D. Brzhechko153, M. F. Canelli153, K. Cormier153, A. De Wit153, R. Del Burgo153, J. K. Heikkilä153,
M. Huwiler153, W. Jin153, A. Jofrehei153, B. Kilminster153, S. Leontsinis153, S. P. Liechti153, A. Macchiolo153,
P. Meiring153, V. M. Mikuni153, U. Molinatti153, I. Neutelings153, A. Reimers153, P. Robmann153,
S. Sanchez Cruz153, K. Schweiger153, M. Senger153, Y. Takahashi153, C. Adloff154,289, C. M. Kuo154, W. Lin154,
A. Roy154, T. Sarkar154,256, S. S. Yu154, L. Ceard155, Y. Chao155, K. F. Chen155, P. H. Chen155, P. S. Chen155,
H. Cheng155, W.-S. Hou155, Y. Y. Li155, R.-S. Lu155, E. Paganis155, A. Psallidas155, A. Steen155, H. Y. Wu155,
E. Yazgan155, P. R. Yu155, B. Asavapibhop156, C. Asawatangtrakuldee156, N. Srimanobhas156, F. Boran157,
S. Damarseckin157,290, Z. S. Demiroglu157, F. Dolek157, I. Dumanoglu157,291, E. Eskut157, Y. Guler157,292,
E. Gurpinar Guler157,292, C. Isik157, O. Kara157, A. Kayis Topaksu157, U. Kiminsu157, G. Onengut157,
K. Ozdemir157,293, A. Polatoz157, A. E. Simsek157, B. Tali157,294, U. G. Tok157, S. Turkcapar157, I. S. Zorbakir157,
G. Karapinar158, K. Ocalan158,295, M. Yalvac158,296, B. Akgun159, I. O. Atakisi159, E. Gulmez159, M. Kaya159,297,
O. Kaya159,298, Ö. Özçelik159, S. Tekten159,299, E. A. Yetkin159,300, A. Cakir160, K. Cankocak160,291,
Y. Komurcu160, S. Sen160,301, S. Cerci161,79, I. Hos161,302, B. Isildak161,303, B. Kaynak161, S. Ozkorucuklu161,
H. Sert161, C. Simsek161, D. Sunar Cerci161,294, C. Zorbilmez161, B. Grynyov162, L. Levchuk163, D. Anthony164,
E. Bhal164, S. Bologna164, J. J. Brooke164, A. Bundock164, E. Clement164, D. Cussans164, H. Flacher164,
M. Glowacki164, J. Goldstein164, G. P. Heath164, H. F. Heath164, L. Kreczko164, B. Krikler164,
S. Paramesvaran164, S. Seif El Nasr-Storey164, V. J. Smith164, N. Stylianou164,304, K. Walkingshaw Pass164,
R. White164, K. W. Bell165, A. Belyaev165,305, C. Brew165, R. M. Brown165, D. J. A. Cockerill165, C. Cooke165,
K. V. Ellis165, K. Harder165, S. Harper165, M.-L. Holmberg165,306, J. Linacre165, K. Manolopoulos165,
D. M. Newbold165, E. Olaiya165, D. Petyt165, T. Reis165, T. Schuh165, C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous165,
I. R. Tomalin165, T. Williams165, R. Bainbridge166, P. Bloch166, S. Bonomally166, J. Borg166, S. Breeze166,
O. Buchmuller166, V. Cepaitis166, G. S. Chahal166,307, D. Colling166, P. Dauncey166, G. Davies166,
M. Della Negra166, S. Fayer166, G. Fedi166, G. Hall166, M. H. Hassanshahi166, G. Iles166, J. Langford166,
L. Lyons166, A.-M. Magnan166, S. Malik166, A. Martelli166, D. G. Monk166, J. Nash166,308, M. Pesaresi166,
B. C. Radburn-Smith166, D. M. Raymond166, A. Richards166, A. Rose166, E. Scott166, C. Seez166,
A. Shtipliyski166, A. Tapper166, K. Uchida166, T. Virdee166,236, M. Vojinovic166, N. Wardle166, S. N. Webb166,
D. Winterbottom166, K. Coldham167, J. E. Cole167, A. Khan167, P. Kyberd167, I. D. Reid167, L. Teodorescu167,
S. Zahid167, S. Abdullin168, A. Brinkerhoff168, B. Caraway168, J. Dittmann168, K. Hatakeyama168,
A. R. Kanuganti168, B. McMaster168, M. Saunders168, S. Sawant168, C. Sutantawibul168, J. Wilson168,
R. Bartek169, A. Dominguez169, R. Uniyal169, A. M. Vargas Hernandez169, A. Buccilli170, S. I. Cooper170,
D. Di Croce170, S. V. Gleyzer170, C. Henderson170, C. U. Perez170, P. Rumerio170,309, C. West170,
A. Buccilli170, S. I. Cooper170, D. Di Croce170, S. V. Gleyzer170, C. Henderson170, C. U. Perez170,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Articles Nature Physics

P. Rumerio94,170, C. West170, A. Akpinar171, A. Albert171, D. Arcaro171, C. Cosby171, Z. Demiragli171,

C. Erice171, E. Fontanesi171, D. Gastler171, S. May171, J. Rohlf171, K. Salyer171, D. Sperka171, D. Spitzbart171,
I. Suarez171, A. Tsatsos171, S. Yuan171, D. Zou171, G. Benelli172, B. Burkle172, X. Coubez172,238, D. Cutts172,
M. Hadley172, U. Heintz172, J. M. Hogan172, T. Kwon172, G. Landsberg172, K. T. Lau172, D. Li172, M. Lukasik172,
J. Luo172, M. Narain172, N. Pervan172, S. Sagir172,311, F. Simpson172, E. Usai172, W. Y. Wong172, X. Yan172,
D. Yu172, W. Zhang172, J. Bonilla173, C. Brainerd173, R. Breedon173, M. Calderon De La Barca Sanchez173,
M. Chertok173, J. Conway173, P. T. Cox173, R. Erbacher173, G. Haza173, F. Jensen173, O. Kukral173, R. Lander173,
M. Mulhearn173, D. Pellett173, B. Regnery173, D. Taylor173, Y. Yao173, F. Zhang173, M. Bachtis174,
R. Cousins174, A. Datta174, D. Hamilton174, J. Hauser174, M. Ignatenko174, M. A. Iqbal174, T. Lam174,
W. A. Nash174, S. Regnard174, D. Saltzberg174, B. Stone174, V. Valuev174, Y. Chen175, R. Clare175,
J. W. Gary175, M. Gordon175, G. Hanson175, G. Karapostoli175, O. R. Long175, N. Manganelli175, W. Si175,
S. Wimpenny175, Y. Zhang175, J. G. Branson176, P. Chang176, S. Cittolin176, S. Cooperstein176, D. Diaz176,
J. Duarte176, R. Gerosa176, L. Giannini176, J. Guiang176, R. Kansal176, V. Krutelyov176, R. Lee176, J. Letts176,
M. Masciovecchio176, F. Mokhtar176, M. Pieri176, B. V. Sathia Narayanan176, V. Sharma176, M. Tadel176,
F. Würthwein176, Y. Xiang176, A. Yagil176, N. Amin177, C. Campagnari177, M. Citron177, G. Collura177,
A. Dorsett177, V. Dutta177, J. Incandela177, M. Kilpatrick177, J. Kim177, B. Marsh177, H. Mei177, M. Oshiro177,
M. Quinnan177, J. Richman177, U. Sarica177, F. Setti177, J. Sheplock177, P. Siddireddy177, D. Stuart177,
S. Wang177, A. Bornheim178, O. Cerri178, I. Dutta178, J. M. Lawhorn178, N. Lu178, J. Mao178, H. B. Newman178,
T. Q. Nguyen178, M. Spiropulu178, J. R. Vlimant178, C. Wang178, S. Xie178, Z. Zhang178, R. Y. Zhu178,
J. Alison179, S. An179, M. B. Andrews179, P. Bryant179, T. Ferguson179, A. Harilal179, C. Liu179,
T. Mudholkar179, M. Paulini179, A. Sanchez179, W. Terrill179, J. P. Cumalat180, W. T. Ford180, A. Hassani180,
G. Karathanasis180, E. MacDonald180, R. Patel180, A. Perloff180, C. Savard180, N. Schonbeck180,
K. Stenson180, K. A. Ulmer180, S. R. Wagner180, N. Zipper180, J. Alexander181, S. Bright-Thonney181,
X. Chen181, Y. Cheng181, D. J. Cranshaw181, X. Fan181, S. Hogan181,310, J. Monroy181, J. R. Patterson181,
D. Quach181, J. Reichert181, M. Reid181, A. Ryd181, W. Sun181, J. Thom181, P. Wittich181, R. Zou181,
M. Albrow182, M. Alyari182, G. Apollinari182, A. Apresyan182, A. Apyan182, L. A. T. Bauerdick182,
D. Berry182, J. Berryhill182, P. C. Bhat182, K. Burkett182, J. N. Butler182, A. Canepa182, G. B. Cerati182,
H. W. K. Cheung182, F. Chlebana182, K. F. Di Petrillo182, J. Dickinson182, V. D. Elvira182, Y. Feng182,
J. Freeman182, A. Gandrakota182, Z. Gecse182, L. Gray182, D. Green182, S. Grünendahl182, O. Gutsche182,
R. M. Harris182, R. Heller182, T. C. Herwig182, J. Hirschauer182, B. Jayatilaka182, S. Jindariani182,
M. Johnson182, U. Joshi182, T. Klijnsma182, B. Klima182, K. H. M. Kwok182, S. Lammel182, D. Lincoln182,
R. Lipton182, T. Liu182, C. Madrid182, K. Maeshima182, C. Mantilla182, D. Mason182, P. McBride182,
P. Merkel182, S. Mrenna182, S. Nahn182, J. Ngadiuba182, V. Papadimitriou182, N. Pastika182, K. Pedro182,
C. Pena182,280, F. Ravera182, A. Reinsvold Hall182,312, L. Ristori182, E. Sexton-Kennedy182, N. Smith182,
A. Soha182, L. Spiegel182, S. Stoynev182, J. Strait182, L. Taylor182, S. Tkaczyk182, N. V. Tran182, L. Uplegger182,
E. W. Vaandering182, H. A. Weber182, P. Avery183, D. Bourilkov183, L. Cadamuro183, V. Cherepanov183,
R. D. Field183, D. Guerrero183, M. Kim183, E. Koenig183, J. Konigsberg183, A. Korytov183, K. H. Lo183,
K. Matchev183, N. Menendez183, G. Mitselmakher183, A. Muthirakalayil Madhu183, N. Rawal183,
D. Rosenzweig183, S. Rosenzweig183, K. Shi183, J. Wang183, Z. Wu183, E. Yigitbasi183, X. Zuo183, T. Adams184,
A. Askew184, R. Habibullah184, V. Hagopian184, K. F. Johnson184, R. Khurana184, T. Kolberg184,
G. Martinez184, H. Prosper184, C. Schiber184, O. Viazlo184, R. Yohay184, J. Zhang184, M. M. Baarmand185,
S. Butalla185, T. Elkafrawy185,231, M. Hohlmann185, R. Kumar Verma185, D. Noonan185, M. Rahmani185,
F. Yumiceva185, M. R. Adams186, H. Becerril Gonzalez186, R. Cavanaugh186, S. Dittmer186,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Nature Physics Articles
O. Evdokimov186, C. E. Gerber186, D. J. Hofman186, A. H. Merrit186, C. Mills186, G. Oh186, T. Roy186,
S. Rudrabhatla186, M. B. Tonjes186, N. Varelas186, J. Viinikainen186, X. Wang186, Z. Ye186, M. Alhusseini187,
K. Dilsiz187,313, L. Emediato187, R. P. Gandrajula187, O. K. Köseyan187, J.-P. Merlo187, A. Mestvirishvili187,314,
J. Nachtman187, H. Ogul187,315, Y. Onel187, A. Penzo187, C. Snyder187, E. Tiras187,316, O. Amram188,
B. Blumenfeld188, L. Corcodilos188, J. Davis188, A. V. Gritsan188, S. Kyriacou188, P. Maksimovic188,
J. Roskes188, M. Swartz188, T. Á. Vámi188, A. Abreu189, J. Anguiano189, C. Baldenegro Barrera189,
P. Baringer189, A. Bean189, Z. Flowers189, T. Isidori189, S. Khalil189, J. King189, G. Krintiras189,
A. Kropivnitskaya189, M. Lazarovits189, C. Le Mahieu189, C. Lindsey189, J. Marquez189, N. Minafra189,
M. Murray189, M. Nickel189, C. Rogan189, C. Royon189, R. Salvatico189, S. Sanders189, E. Schmitz189,
C. Smith189, Q. Wang189, Z. Warner189, J. Williams189, G. Wilson189, S. Duric190, A. Ivanov190, K. Kaadze190,
D. Kim190, Y. Maravin190, T. Mitchell190, A. Modak190, K. Nam190, F. Rebassoo191, D. Wright191, E. Adams192,
A. Baden192, O. Baron192, A. Belloni192, S. C. Eno192, N. J. Hadley192, S. Jabeen192, R. G. Kellogg192,
T. Koeth192, Y. Lai192, S. Lascio192, A. C. Mignerey192, S. Nabili192, C. Palmer192, M. Seidel192, A. Skuja192,
L. Wang192, K. Wong192, D. Abercrombie193, G. Andreassi193, R. Bi193, W. Busza193, I. A. Cali193, Y. Chen193,
M. D’Alfonso193, J. Eysermans193, C. Freer193, G. Gomez Ceballos193, M. Goncharov193, P. Harris193,
M. Hu193, M. Klute193, D. Kovalskyi193, J. Krupa193, Y.-J. Lee193, K. Long193, C. Mironov193, C. Paus193,
D. Rankin193, C. Roland193, G. Roland193, Z. Shi193, G. S. F. Stephans193, J. Wang193, Z. Wang193,
B. Wyslouch193, R. M. Chatterjee194, A. Evans194, J. Hiltbrand194, Sh. Jain194, B. M. Joshi194, M. Krohn194,
Y. Kubota194, J. Mans194, M. Revering194, R. Rusack194, R. Saradhy194, N. Schroeder194, N. Strobbe194,
M. A. Wadud194, K. Bloom195, M. Bryson195, S. Chauhan195, D. R. Claes195, C. Fangmeier195, L. Finco195,
F. Golf195, C. Joo195, I. Kravchenko195, I. Reed195, J. E. Siado195, G. R. Snow195,322, W. Tabb195,
A. Wightman195, F. Yan195, A. G. Zecchinelli195, G. Agarwal196, H. Bandyopadhyay196, L. Hay196,
I. Iashvili196, A. Kharchilava196, C. McLean196, D. Nguyen196, J. Pekkanen196, S. Rappoccio196,
A. Williams196, G. Alverson197, E. Barberis197, Y. Haddad197, Y. Han197, A. Hortiangtham197, A. Krishna197,
J. Li197, J. Lidrych197, G. Madigan197, B. Marzocchi197, D. M. Morse197, V. Nguyen197, T. Orimoto197,
A. Parker197, L. Skinnari197, A. Tishelman-Charny197, T. Wamorkar197, B. Wang197, A. Wisecarver197,
D. Wood197, S. Bhattacharya198, J. Bueghly198, Z. Chen198, A. Gilbert198, T. Gunter198, K. A. Hahn198,
Y. Liu198, N. Odell198, M. H. Schmitt198, M. Velasco198, R. Band199, R. Bucci199, M. Cremonesi199, A. Das199,
N. Dev199, R. Goldouzian199, M. Hildreth199, K. Hurtado Anampa199, C. Jessop199, K. Lannon199,
J. Lawrence199, N. Loukas199, D. Lutton199, J. Mariano199, N. Marinelli199, I. Mcalister199, T. McCauley199,
C. Mcgrady199, K. Mohrman199, C. Moore199, Y. Musienko199,273, R. Ruchti199, A. Townsend199,
M. Wayne199, M. Zarucki199, L. Zygala199, B. Bylsma200, L. S. Durkin200, B. Francis200, C. Hill200,
M. Nunez Ornelas200, K. Wei200, B. L. Winer200, B. R. Yates200, F. M. Addesa201, B. Bonham201, P. Das201,
G. Dezoort201, P. Elmer201, A. Frankenthal201, B. Greenberg201, N. Haubrich201, S. Higginbotham201,
A. Kalogeropoulos201, G. Kopp201, S. Kwan201, D. Lange201, D. Marlow201, K. Mei201, I. Ojalvo201,
J. Olsen201, D. Stickland201, C. Tully201, S. Malik202, S. Norberg202, A. S. Bakshi203, V. E. Barnes203,
R. Chawla203, S. Das203, L. Gutay203, M. Jones203, A. W. Jung203, D. Kondratyev203, A. M. Koshy203,
M. Liu203, G. Negro203, N. Neumeister203, G. Paspalaki203, S. Piperov203, A. Purohit203, J. F. Schulte203,
M. Stojanovic203,232, J. Thieman203, F. Wang203, R. Xiao203, W. Xie203, J. Dolen204, N. Parashar204,
D. Acosta205, A. Baty205, T. Carnahan205, M. Decaro205, S. Dildick205, K. M. Ecklund205, S. Freed205,
P. Gardner205, F. J. M. Geurts205, A. Kumar205, W. Li205, B. P. Padley205, R. Redjimi205, J. Rotter205,
W. Shi205, A. G. Stahl Leiton205, S. Yang205, L. Zhang205,317, Y. Zhang205, A. Bodek206, P. de Barbaro206,
R. Demina206, J. L. Dulemba206, C. Fallon206, T. Ferbel206, M. Galanti206, A. Garcia-Bellido206,
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
Articles Nature Physics

O. Hindrichs206, A. Khukhunaishvili206, E. Ranken206, R. Taus206, G. P. Van Onsem206, K. Goulianos207,

B. Chiarito208, J. P. Chou208, Y. Gershtein208, E. Halkiadakis208, A. Hart208, M. Heindl208,
O. Karacheban208,240, I. Laflotte208, A. Lath208, R. Montalvo208, K. Nash208, M. Osherson208, S. Salur208,
S. Schnetzer208, S. Somalwar208, R. Stone208, S. A. Thayil208, S. Thomas208, H. Wang208, H. Acharya209,
A. G. Delannoy209, S. Fiorendi209, T. Holmes209, S. Spanier209, O. Bouhali210,318, M. Dalchenko210,
A. Delgado210, R. Eusebi210, J. Gilmore210, T. Huang210, T. Kamon210,319, H. Kim210, S. Luo210, S. Malhotra210,
R. Mueller210, D. Overton210, D. Rathjens210, A. Safonov210, N. Akchurin211, J. Damgov211, V. Hegde211,
K. Lamichhane211, S. W. Lee211, T. Mengke211, S. Muthumuni211, T. Peltola211, I. Volobouev211, Z. Wang211,
A. Whitbeck211, E. Appelt212, S. Greene212, A. Gurrola212, W. Johns212, A. Melo212, K. Padeken212,
F. Romeo212, P. Sheldon212, S. Tuo212, J. Velkovska212, M. W. Arenton213, B. Cardwell213, B. Cox213,
G. Cummings213, J. Hakala213, R. Hirosky213, M. Joyce213, A. Ledovskoy213, A. Li213, C. Neu213,
C. E. Perez Lara213, B. Tannenwald213, S. White213, N. Poudyal214, S. Banerjee215, K. Black215, T. Bose215,
S. Dasu215, I. De Bruyn215, P. Everaerts215, C. Galloni215, H. He215, M. Herndon215, A. Herve215,
U. Hussain215, A. Lanaro215, A. Loeliger215, R. Loveless215, J. Madhusudanan Sreekala215,
A. Mallampalli215, A. Mohammadi215, D. Pinna215, A. Savin215, V. Shang215, V. Sharma215, W. H. Smith215,
D. Teague215, S. Trembath-Reichert215 and W. Vetens215
1
Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia. 2Institut für Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria. 3Institute for Nuclear Problems, Minsk, Belarus. 4Universiteit
Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium. 5Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium. 6Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium. 7Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium. 8Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. 9Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 10Universidade do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 11Universidade Estadual Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil. 12Universidade Federal do ABC, São Paulo, Brazil.
13
Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria. 14University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria. 15Beihang
University, Beijing, China. 16Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 17Institute of High Energy Physics, Beijing, China. 18State Key
Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing, China. 19Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 20Institute of Modern Physics
and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Ion-beam Application (MOE) - Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 21Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China,
Zhejiang, China. 22Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia. 23Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. 24University of Split, Faculty of Electrical
Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Split, Croatia. 25University of Split, Faculty of Science, Split, Croatia. 26Institute Rudjer
Boskovic, Zagreb, Croatia. 27University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. 28Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 29Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Quito,
Ecuador. 30Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador. 31Academy of Scientific Research and Technology of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian
Network of High Energy Physics, Cairo, Egypt. 32Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP-FU), Fayoum University, El-Fayoum, Egypt. 33National Institute of
Chemical Physics and Biophysics, Tallinn, Estonia. 34Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 35Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki,
Finland. 36Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta, Finland. 37IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 38Laboratoire
Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France. 39Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, IPHC UMR 7178,
Strasbourg, France. 40Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon (IP2I), Villeurbanne, France. 41Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia. 42RWTH
Aachen University, I. Physikalisches Institut, Aachen, Germany. 43RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut A, Aachen, Germany. 44RWTH
Aachen University, III. Physikalisches Institut B, Aachen, Germany. 45Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany. 46University of Hamburg,
Hamburg, Germany. 47Karlsruher Institut fuer Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany. 48Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics (INPP), NCSR Demokritos,
Aghia Paraskevi, Greece. 49National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 50National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
51
University of Ioánnina, Ioánnina, Greece. 52MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
53
Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary. 54Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary. 55Institute of Physics, University of
Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. 56Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of Technology, Gyongyos, Hungary. 57National Institute of Science Education and
Research, HBNI, Bhubaneswar, India. 58Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. 59University of Delhi, Delhi, India. 60Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, HBNI,
Kolkata, India. 61Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Madras, India. 62Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India. 63Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research-A, Mumbai, India. 64Tata Institute of Fundamental Research-B, Mumbai, India. 65Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER), Pune,
India. 66Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran. 67Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran. 68University College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland. 69INFN Sezione di Bari, Bari, Italy. 70Università di Bari, Bari, Italy. 71Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy. 72INFN Sezione di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
73
Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 74INFN Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy. 75Università di Catania, Catania, Italy. 76INFN Sezione di Firenze INFN
Sezione di Firenze, Firenze, Italy. 77Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy. 78INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy. 79INFN Sezione di Genova,
Genova, Italy. 80Università di Genova, Genova, Italy. 81INFN Sezione di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy. 82Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy. 83INFN
Sezione di Napoli, Napoli, Italy. 84Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, Napoli, Italy. 85Università della Basilicata, Potenza, Italy. 86Università G. Marconi, Roma,
Italy. 87INFN Sezione di Padova, Padova, Italy. 88Università di Padova, Padova, Italy. 89Università di Trento, Trento, Italy. 90INFN Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
91
Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy. 92INFN Sezione di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. 93Università di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. 94INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 95Scuola
Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 96Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 97Università di Siena, Siena, Italy. 98INFN Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy. 99Sapienza
Università di Roma, Rome, Italy. 100INFN Sezione di Torino, Torino, Italy. 101Università di Torino, Torino, Italy. 102Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara,
Italy. 103INFN Sezione di Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 104Università di Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 105Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. 106Institute for Universe
and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University, Kwangju, Korea. 107Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea. 108Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
109
Department of Physics, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea. 110Sejong University, Seoul, Korea. 111Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 112University of
Seoul, Seoul, Korea. 113Department of Physics, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. 114Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Korea. 115College of Engineering and
Technology, American University of the Middle East (AUM), Egaila, Kuwait, Dasman, Kuwait. 116Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia. 117Vilnius University,

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles
Vilnius, Lithuania. 118National Centre for Particle Physics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 119Universidad de Sonora (UNISON), Hermosillo,
Mexico. 120Centro de Investigacion y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Mexico City, Mexico. 121Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico.
122
Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico. 123University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Montenegro. 124University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand. 125University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 126National Centre for Physics, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
127
AGH University of Science and Technology Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, Krakow, Poland. 128National Centre for
Nuclear Research, Swierk, Poland. 129Institute of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 130Laborató rio de
Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Lisboa, Portugal. 131Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia. 132Petersburg Nuclear Physics
Institute, Gatchina (St. Petersburg), Russia. 133Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia. 134Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow,
Russia. 135National Research Center’Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia. 136National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’
(MEPhI), Moscow, Russia. 137P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia. 138Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State
University, Moscow, Russia. 139Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Novosibirsk, Russia. 140Institute for High Energy Physics of National Research Centre
‘Kurchatov Institute’, Protvino, Russia. 141National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia. 142Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia.
143
Faculty of Physics and VINCA Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 144Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas
Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Madrid, Spain. 145Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 146Universidad de Oviedo, Instituto
Universitario de Ciencias y Tecnologías Espaciales de Asturias (ICTEA), Oviedo, Spain. 147Instituto de Física de Cantabria (IFCA), CSIC-Universidad de
Cantabria, Santander, Spain. 148University of Colombo, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 149Department of Physics, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka. 150CERN,
European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland. 151Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland. 152ETH Zurich – Institute for Particle
Physics and Astrophysics (IPA), Zurich, Switzerland. 153Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland. 154National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan. 155National
Taiwan University (NTU), Taipei, Taiwan. 156Department of Physics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 157Physics Department, Science and Art
Faculty, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey. 158Physics Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. 159Bogazici University, Istanbul,
Turkey. 160Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey. 161Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 162Institute for Scintillation Materials of National Academy
of Science of Ukraine, Kharkov, Ukraine. 163National Scientific Center, Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology, Kharkov, Ukraine. 164University of Bristol,
Bristol, UK. 165Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, UK. 166Imperial College, London, UK. 167Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK. 168Baylor University, Waco,
TX, USA. 169Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA. 170The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. 171Boston University, Boston, MA,
USA. 172Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 173University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. 174University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
175
University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA. 176University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 177Department of Physics, University of
California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. 178California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA. 179Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA. 180University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. 181Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 182Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL, USA.
183
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 184Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA. 185Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA.
186
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), Chicago, IL, USA. 187The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 188Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
189
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. 190Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA. 191Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
CA, USA. 192University of Maryland, College Park, MS, USA. 193Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. 194University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN, USA. 195University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA. 196State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 197Northeastern
University, Boston, MA, USA. 198Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA. 199University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA. 200The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH, USA. 201Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. 202University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, PR, USA. 203Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, USA. 204Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, IN, USA. 205Rice University, Houston, TX, USA. 206University of Rochester, Rochester, NY,
USA. 207The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA. 208Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA. 209University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN, USA. 210Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. 211Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. 212Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN,
USA. 213University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 214Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA. 215University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI,
USA. 216Present address: TU Wien, Wien, Austria. 217Present address: Institute of Basic and Applied Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Arab Academy for
Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt. 218Present address: Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium. 219Present address:
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil. 220Present address: Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 221Present address:
The University of the State of Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil. 222Present address: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. 223Present address:
Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 224Present address: UFMS, Nova Andradina, Brazil. 225Present address: Department of Physics,
Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China. 226Present address: The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA. 227Present address: National Research Center
’Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia. 228Present address: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia. 229Present address: Cairo University, Cairo,
Egypt. 230Present address: British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt. 231Present address: Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. 232Present address: Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. 233Present address: Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, France. 234Present address: Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi,
Georgia. 235Present address: Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Erzincan, Turkey. 236Present address: CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research,
Geneva, Switzerland. 237Present address: University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 238Present address: RWTH Aachen University, III. Physikalisches
Institut A, Aachen, Germany. 239Present address: Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran. 240Present address: Brandenburg University of Technology,
Cottbus, Germany. 241Present address: Forschungszentrum Jülich, Juelich, Germany. 242Present address: Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut
University, Assiut, Egypt. 243Present address: Karoly Robert Campus, MATE Institute of Technology, Gyongyos, Hungary. 244Present address: Institute of
Physics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. 245Present address: Institute of Nuclear Research ATOMKI, Debrecen, Hungary. 246Present address:
Facultatea de Fizica, Universitatea Babes-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. 247Present address: MTA-ELTE Lendület CMS Particle and Nuclear Physics Group,
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. 248Present address: Faculty of Informatics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. 249Present address:
Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary. 250Present address: IIT Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar, India. 251Present address: Institute of Physics,
Bhubaneswar, India. 252Present address: Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. 253Present address: UPES - University of Petroleum and Energy
Studies, Dehradun, India. 254Present address: Shoolini University, Solan, India. 255Present address: University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India. 256Present
address: University of Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, India. 257Present address: Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India. 258Present address: Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai, India. 259Present address: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, Germany. 260Present address: Department
of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran. 261Present address: Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. 262Present address: Department
of Physics, University of Science and Technology of Mazandaran, Behshahr, Iran. 263Present address: INFN Sezione di Bari, Università di Bari, Politecnico di
Bari, Bari, Italy. 264Present address: Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Bologna, Italy.
265
Present address: Centro Siciliano di Fisica Nucleare e di Struttura Della Materia, Catania, Italy. 266Present address: Scuola Superiore Meridionale,
Università di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy. 267Present address: Università di Napoli ’Federico II’, Napoli, Italy. 268Present address: Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche – Istituto Officina dei Materiali, Perugia, Italy. 269Present address: Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia. 270Present address: Department of
Applied Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia. 271Present address: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y
Tecnología, Mexico City, Mexico. 272Present address: IRFU, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 273Present address: Institute for Nuclear

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Articles Nature Physics

Research, Moscow, Russia. 274Present address: National Research Nuclear University ’Moscow Engineering Physics Institute’ (MEPhI), Moscow, Russia.
275
Present address: Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences, Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 276Present address: St Petersburg
Polytechnic University, St Petersburg, Russia. 277Present address: University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 278Present address: Imperial College, London,
UK. 279Present address: P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia. 280Present address: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA.
281
Present address: Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia. 282Present address: Faculty of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
283
Present address: Trincomalee Campus, Eastern University, Nilaveli, Sri Lanka. 284Present address: INFN Sezione di Pavia, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
285
Present address: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 286Present address: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Lausanne,
Switzerland. 287Present address: Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland. 288Present address: Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Vienna, Austria.
289
Present address: Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules, IN2P3-CNRS, Annecy-le-Vieux, France. 290Present address: Srnak University,
Sirnak, Turkey. 291Present address: Near East University, Research Center of Experimental Health Science, Nicosia, Turkey. 292Present address: Konya
Technical University, Konya, Turkey. 293Present address: Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey. 294Present address: Adiyaman University, Adiyaman, Turkey.
295
Present address: Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey. 296Present address: Bozok Universitetesi Rektörlügü, Yozgat, Turkey. 297Present address:
Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. 298Present address: Milli Savunma University, Istanbul, Turkey. 299Present address: Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey.
300
Present address: Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey. 301Present address: Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 302Present address: Faculty of
Engineering, Istanbul University – Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey. 303Present address: Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey. 304Present address: Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium. 305Present address: School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 306Present
address: Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, UK. 307Present address: IPPP Durham University, Durham, UK. 308Present address: Faculty of Science,
Monash University, Clayton, Australia. 309Present address: Università di Torino, Torino, Italy. 310Present address: Bethel University, St Paul, MN, USA.
311
Present address: Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey. 312Present address: United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, USA.
313
Present address: Bingol University, Bingol, Turkey. 314Present address: Georgian Technical University, Tbilisi, Georgia. 315Present address: Sinop University,
Sinop, Turkey. 316Present address: Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey. 317Present address: Institute of Modern Physics and Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics
and Ion-beam Application (MOE), Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 318Present address: Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar. 319Present address:
Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. 320Deceased: W. De Boer. 321Deceased: P. Baillon. 322Deceased: G. R. S­no­w.­

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles

Extended Data Fig. 1 | Feynman diagrams for the H boson-mediated EW ZZ production contributions. Here, f refers to any ℓ, ν, or q. The tree-level
diagrams featuring VBF production are grouped together in the upper row, and those featuring VH production are grouped in the lower row. The
interaction displayed in each diagram is meant to progress from left to right. Each straight, curvy, or curly line refers to the different set of particles
denoted. Straight, solid lines with no arrows indicate the line could refer to either a particle or an antiparticle, whereas those with forward (backward)
arrows refer to a particle (an antiparticle).

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Articles Nature Physics

Extended Data Fig. 2 | Feynman diagrams for the EW continuum ZZ production contributions. Here, f refers to any ℓ, ν, or q. The tree-level diagrams
featuring vector boson scattering (VBS) production are grouped together in the upper half, and those featuring VZZ production are grouped in the
lower half. The interaction displayed in each diagram is meant to progress from left to right. Each straight, curvy, or curly line refers to the different set
of particles denoted. Straight, solid lines with no arrows indicate the line could refer to either a particle or an antiparticle, whereas those with forward
(backward) arrows refer to a particle (an antiparticle).

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles

Extended Data Fig. 3 | Feynman diagram for the qq → ZZ and qq′ → WZ processes. Both processes are represented at tree level with a single diagram.
These two processes constitute the major irreducible, noninterfering background contributions in the off-shell region. The interaction displayed in each
diagram is meant to progress from left to right. Each straight, curvy, or curly line refers to the different set of particles denoted. Straight, solid lines with no
arrows indicate the line could refer to either a particle or an antiparticle, whereas those with forward (backward) arrows refer to a particle (an antiparticle).

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Articles Nature Physics

Extended Data Fig. 4 | Distributions of mZZ T in the different Nj categories of the 2ℓ2ν signal region. The postfit distributions of the transverse ZZ invariant
mass are displayed in the jet multiplicity categories of Nj = 0 (left), = 1 (middle), and ≥2 (right) with a missing transverse momentum requirement of
pmiss
T > 200 GeV to enrich H boson contributions. The color legend for the stacked or dot-dashed histograms is given above the plots. The stacked
histogram is split into the following components: gg (light pink) and EW (dark pink) ZZ production, instrumental pmiss T background (purple), nonresonant
proceses (gray), the qq → ZZ (blue) and qq′ → WZ (green) processes, and tZ+X production, where X refers to any other particle. Postfit refers to
individual fits of the data (shown as black points with error bars as uncertainties at 68% CL) to the combined 2ℓ2ν + 4ℓ sample, including the WZ control
region, and assuming either SM H boson parameters (stacked histogram with the hashed band as the total postfit uncertainty at 68% CL) or no off-shell H
boson production (dot-dashed gold line). The middle panels along the vertical show the ratio of the data or dashed histograms to the stacked histogram,
and the lower panels show the predicted relative contributions of each process. The rightmost bins contain the overflow.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles

Extended Data Fig. 5 | Distributions of mZZ T in the different Nj categories of the γ +jets CR. The distributions of the transverse ZZ invariant mass are
displayed for the Nj = 0, Nj = 1, and Nj≥2 jet multiplicity categories from left to right. The missing transverse momentum requirement pmissT > 200 GeV
is applied in the Nj≥2 category to focus on the region more sensitive to off-shell H boson production. The stacked histogram shows the predictions for
contributions with genuine, large pmissT , or the instrumental pT
miss background from the γ +jets simulation. Contributions with genuine, large pmiss are split
T
as those coming from the more dominant Z( → νν)γ (teal), W( → ℓν)γ (purple), and W( → ℓν)+jets (yellow) processes, and other small components (red).
The prediction for instrumental pmissT background from simulation is shown in light pink. The black points with error bars as uncertainties at 68% CL show
the observed CR data. The distributions are reweighted with the γ → ℓℓ transfer factors extracted from the pmiss T < 125 GeV sidebands. The rightmost bins
include the overflow. In these distributions, we find a discrepancy between the observed data and the predicted distributions because the reweighted γ
+jets samples have inaccurate pmiss T response and the simulation is at LO in QCD. Therefore, we use the difference between the observed data and the
genuine- pmiss
T contributions to model the instrumental pmiss
T background instead of using simulation for this estimate.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Articles Nature Physics

Extended Data Fig. 6 | Distributions of the VBF discriminants for nonresonant background. The distributions of the SM D2jet VBF (left) and D VBF, a2 (right)
2jet
kinematic VBF discriminants are shown in the 2ℓ2ν signal region, Nj≥2 category. The stacked histogram shows the predictions from simulation, which
consists of nonresonant contributions from WW (green) and tt (gray) production, or other small components (orange). The black points with error bars
as uncertainties at 68% CL show the prediction from the eμ CR data. While only the data is used in the final estimate of the nonresonant background, we
note that predictions from simulation already agree well with the data estimate.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles

Extended Data Fig. 7 | Distributions of mWZ T in different Nj categories of the WZ control region. The postfit distributions of the transverse WZ invariant
mass are displayed for the Nj = 0, Nj = 1, and Nj≥2 jet multiplicity categories of the WZ → 3ℓ1ν control region from left to right. Postfit refers to a combined
2ℓ2ν + 4ℓ fit, together with this control region, assuming SM H boson parameters. The stacked histogram is shown with the hashed band as the total
postfit uncertainty at 68% CL. The color legend is given above the plots, with the different contributions referring to the WZ (light green), ZZ (blue), Z
+jets (dark green), Zγ (yellow), tt (gray), and tV+X (brown, with X being any other particle) production processes, as well as the small EW ZZ production
component (dark pink). The black points with error bars as uncertainties at 68% CL show the observed data. The middle panels along the vertical show
the ratio of the data to the total prediction, and the lower panels show the predicted relative contributions of each process. The rightmost bins contain the
overflow.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Articles Nature Physics

Extended Data Fig. 8 | Log-likelihood scans of the off-shell signal strengths, ΓH, and fai. Top panels: The likelihood scans are shown for μoff -shell or μoff-shell
F V
(left), μoff-shell (middle), and ΓH (right). Scans for μoff
F
-shell (blue) and μoff-shell (magenta) are obtained with the other parameter unconstrained. Those for
V
μoff-shell are shown with (blue) and without (magenta) the constraint Roff V,F
-shell (= μoff-shell /μoff-shell ) = 1. Constraints on Γ are shown with and without
V F H
anomalous HVV couplings. Bottom panels: The likelihood scans of the anomalous HVV coupling parameters fa2 (left), fa3 (middle), and fΛ1 (right) are
shown with the constraint ΓH = ΓSM H = 4.1 MeV (blue), ΓH unconstrained (magenta), or based on on-shell 4ℓ data only (green). Observed (expected)
scans are shown with solid (dashed) curves. The horizontal lines indicate the 68% (−2Δ ln L = 1.0) and 95% (−2Δ ln L = 3.84) CL regions. The
integrated luminosity reaches up to 138 fb−1 when only off-shell information is used, and up to 140 fb−1 when on-shell 4ℓ events are included.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Nature Physics Articles

Extended Data Fig. 9 | Distributions of ratios of the numbers of events in each off-shell signal region bin. The ratios are taken after separate fits to the no
off-shell hypothesis (Nno off-shell) and the best overall fit (Nbest fit) with the observed ΓH value of 3.2 MeV in the SM-like HVV couplings scenario. The stacked
histogram displays the predicted contributions (pink from the 4ℓ off-shell and green from the 2ℓ2ν off-shell signal regions) after the best fit, with the
hashed band representing the total postfit uncertainty at 68% CL, and the gold dot-dashed line shows the predicted distribution of these ratios for a fit
to the no off-shell hypothesis. The black solid (hollow) points, with error bars as uncertainties at 68% CL, represent the observed 2ℓ2ν and 4ℓ (4ℓ-only)
data. The first and last bins contain the underflow and the overflow, respectively. The bottom panel displays the ratio of the various displayed hypotheses
or observed data to the prediction from the best fit. The integrated luminosity reaches only up to 138 fb−1 since on-shell 4ℓ events are not displayed.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

Articles Nature Physics

Extended Data Table 1 | Results on ΓH and the different anomalous HVV couplings. Results on ΓH and the different anomalous HVV couplings. The
results on ΓH are displayed in units of MeV, and those on the anomalous HVV couplings are summarized in terms of the corresponding on-shell cross
section fractions fa2, fa3, and fΛ1 (fai in short, and scaled by 105). For the results on ΓH, the tests with the anomalous HVV couplings are distinguished by the
denoted fai, and the expected best-fit values, not quoted explicitly in the table, are always ΓH = 4.1 MeV. The SM-like result is the same as that from the
combination of all 4l and 2l2ν data sets in Table 1. For the results on fai, the constraints are shown with either ΓH = ΓSM H = 4.1 MeV required, or ΓH left
unconstrained, and the expected best-fit values, also not quoted explicitly, are always null. The various fit conditions are indicated in the column labeled
‘Condition’, where the abbreviation ‘(u)’ indicates which parameter is unconstrained.

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics