Properties of the Higgs boson with mass near 125 GeV are measured in protonproton collisions with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Comprehensive sets of production and decay measurements are combined. The decay channels include $\gamma\gamma$, ZZ, WW, $\tau\tau$, bb, and $\mu\mu$ pairs. The data samples were collected in 2011 and 2012 and correspond to integrated luminosities of up to 5.1 fb$^{1}$ at 7 TeV and up to 19.7 fb$^{1}$ at 8 TeV. From the highresolution $\gamma\gamma$ and ZZ channels, the mass of the Higgs boson is determined to be $125.02 \,^{+0.26}_{0.27}\,\text{(stat.)} \,^{+0.14}_{0.15}\,\text{(syst.)}$ GeV. For this mass value, the event yields obtained in the different analyses tagging specific decay channels and production mechanisms are consistent with those expected for the standard model Higgs boson. The combined bestfit signal relative to the standard model expectation is $1.00 \,\pm0.09\,\text{(stat.)} \,^{+0.08}_{0.07}\,\text{(theo.)} \,\pm0.07\,\text{(syst.)}$ at the measured mass. The couplings of the Higgs boson are probed for deviations in magnitude from the standard model predictions in multiple ways, including searches for invisible and undetected decays. No significant deviations are found.
\( \def\MX{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{H}} \def\MH{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{H}} \def\hgg{\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{\gamma\gamma}} \def\hzzllll{\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{ZZ}\rightarrow\mathrm{4\ell}} \def\ggh{\mathrm{ggH}} \def\tth{\mathrm{ttH}} \def\vh{\mathrm{VH}} \def\vbf{\mathrm{VBF}} \def\to{\rightarrow} \def\gg{\mathrm{\gamma\gamma}} \def\PH{\mathrm{H}} \def\GSM{\mathrm{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{SM}}} \def\GammaObsComb{1.7} \def\GammaExpComb{2.3} \def\muggh{\mu_{\mathrm{ggH}}} \def\mutth{\mu_{\mathrm{ttH}}} \def\muvh{\mu_{\mathrm{VH}}} \def\muvbf{\mu_{\mathrm{VBF}}} \)
Plot  Caption 

The 68% CL confidence regions for the signal strength $\sigma /\sigma_{\text{SM}}$ versus the mass of the boson $\MH$ for the $\hgg$ and $\hzzllll$ final states, and their combination. The symbol $\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}$ denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. In this combination, the relative signal strength for the two decay modes is set to the expectation for the SM Higgs boson.  
Scan of the test statistic $q(\MX)=2 \, \Delta \ln \mathcal{L} $ versus the mass of the boson $\MX$ for the $\hgg$ and $\hzzllll$ final states separately and for their combination. Three independent signal strengths, $(\ggh,\tth)\to \gg$, $(\vbf,\vh)\to \gg$, and $\text{pp}\to\hzzllll$, are profiled together with all other nuisance parameters. The solid curve is obtained by profiling all nuisance parameters and thus includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed curve is obtained by fixing all nuisance parameters to their bestfit values, except for those related to the $\hgg$ background description, thus including only statistical uncertainties. The crossings with the thick (thin) horizontal lines define the 68% (95%) CL interval for the measured mass.  
Scan of the test statistic $q(m_{\PH}^{\gg}  m_{\PH}^{4\ell})$ versus the difference between two individual mass measurements for the same model of signal strengths used in the left panel.  
Likelihood scan as a function of the width of the boson. The continuous (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) results for the $\hgg$ analysis, the $\hzzllll$ analysis, and their combination. The data are consistent with $\GSM \sim$ 4 MeV and for the combination of the two channels the observed (expected) upper limit on the width at the 95% CL is $\GammaObsComb (\GammaExpComb)$ GeV. 
Significance (m_{H} = 125.0 GeV)  

Combination  Expected (postfit)  Observed  
H→ZZ tagged  6.3 σ  6.5 σ  
H→γγ tagged  5.3 σ  5.6 σ  
H→WW tagged  5.4 σ  4.7 σ  
H→ττ tagged  3.9 σ  3.8 σ  
H→bb tagged  2.6 σ  2.0 σ  
H→μμ tagged  <0.1 σ  0.4 σ 
The observed and median expected significances of the excesses for each decay mode group, assuming $\MX=125.0$ GeV.
Plot  Caption 

Values of the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} for the combination (solid vertical line) and for subcombinations by predominant decay mode and additional tags targeting a particular production mechanism. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σ_{SM} uncertainty. The σ/σ_{SM} ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} values for the individual modes; they include both statistical and systematic uncertainties.  
Values of the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} for the combination (solid vertical line) and for subcombinations by predominant decay mode. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σ_{SM} uncertainty. The σ/σ_{SM} ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} values for the individual modes; they include both statistical and systematic uncertainties.  
Values of the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} for the combination (solid vertical line) and for subcombinations by analysis tags targeting individual production mechanisms. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σ_{SM} uncertainty. The σ/σ_{SM} ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} values for the individual modes; they include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. 
The tables below contain the same information that is shown in Figure 4 of the HIG14009 paper.
Grouping  μ̂ = σ/σ_{SM} (m_{H} = 125.0 GeV)  

by production tag and predominant decay mode  value  uncertainty 
H → ZZ (2 jets)  1.549  0.661/+0.954 
H → ZZ (0/1 jet)  0.883  0.272/+0.337 
H → ττ (ttH tag)  1.325  3.600/+6.079 
H → ττ (VH tag)  0.868  0.884/+1.000 
H → ττ (VBF tag)  0.949  0.381/+0.432 
H → ττ (0/1 jet)  0.845  0.384/+0.423 
H → WW (ttH tag)  3.939  1.437/+1.704 
H → WW (VH tag)  0.800  0.934/+1.089 
H → WW (VBF tag)  0.623  0.479/+0.594 
H → WW (0/1 jet)  0.766  0.206/+0.229 
H → γγ (ttH tag)  2.675  1.729/+2.402 
H → γγ (VH tag)  0.575  0.807/+0.934 
H → γγ (VBF tag)  1.514  0.475/+0.545 
H → γγ (untagged)  1.000  0.257/+0.286 
H → bb (ttH tag)  0.650  1.809/+1.850 
H → bb (VH tag)  0.890  0.441/+0.469 
by predominant decay mode  value  uncertainty 
H → ZZ tagged  1.003  0.264/+0.318 
H → WW tagged  0.832  0.201/+0.226 
H → γγ tagged  1.121  0.224/+0.251 
H → ττ tagged  0.913  0.264/+0.289 
H → bb tagged  0.836  0.429/+0.454 
by production tag  value  uncertainty 
ttH tagged  2.750  0.911/+1.061 
VH tagged  0.833  0.345/+0.361 
VBF tagged  1.150  0.248/+0.287 
Untagged  0.869  0.146/+0.173 
Plot  Caption 

The 68% CL regions (bounded by the solid curves) for signal strength of the ggH and ttH, and of the VBF and VH production mechanisms: μ_{ggH,ttH} and μ _{VBF,VH}, respectively. The different colors show the results obtained by combining data from each of the five analyzed decay mode groups: γγ (green), WW (blue), ZZ(red), ττ (violet), bb (cyan). The crosses indicate the bestfit values. The diamond at (1,1) indicates the expected values for the SM Higgs boson. 

1D test statistics 
Channel grouping  Best fit (μ_{ggH,ttH}, μ_{VBF,VH}) 
H → γγ tagged  $(1.07,1.24)$ 
H → ZZ tagged  $(0.88,1.75)$ 
H → WW tagged  $(0.87,0.66)$ 
H → ττ tagged  $(0.52,1.21)$ 
H → bb tagged  $(0.55,0.85)$ 
Combined best fit μ_{VBF,VH}/μ_{ggH,ttH}  
Observed (expected)  
$1.25_{0.44}^{+0.62}$ ($1.00_{0.35}^{+0.49}$) 
Plot  Caption 

Likelihood scan results for $\muggh, \muvbf, \muvh$, and $\mutth$. The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals. When scanning each individual parameter, the three other parameters are profiled. The SM values of the relative branching fractions are assumed for the different decay modes. 
Parameter  Best fit result (68% CL) for full combination 
Observed significance ($\sigma$)  Expected sensitivity ($\sigma$)  Pull to SM hypothesis ($\sigma$) 
μ_{ggH}  $0.85_{0.16}^{+0.19}$  6.6  7.4  0.8 
μ_{VBF}  $1.16_{0.34}^{+0.37}$  3.7  3.3  +0.4 
μ_{VH}  $0.92_{0.36}^{+0.38}$  2.7  2.9  0.2 
μ_{ttH}  $2.90_{0.94}^{+1.08}$  3.5  1.2  +2.2 
Parameter  Best fit result (68% CL) for 7 TeV data  Best fit result (68% CL) for 8 TeV data 
μ_{ggH}  $1.03^{+0.37}_{0.33}$  $0.79^{+0.19}_{0.17}$ 
μ_{VBF}  $1.77^{+0.99}_{0.90}$  $1.02^{+0.39}_{0.36}$ 
μ_{VH}  $0.68^{+0.99}_{0.68}$  $0.96^{+0.41}_{0.39}$ 
μ_{ttH}  < 2.19  $3.27^{+1.20}_{1.04}$ 
\( \def\ensuremath{} \def\xspace{} \def\hzz{\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{ZZ}} \def\hww{\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{WW}} \def\htt{\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{\tau\tau}} \def\hbb{\mathrm{H}\rightarrow\mathrm{bb}} \newcommand{\DRzzww}{\ensuremath{1.10^{+0.44}_{0.33}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggww}{\ensuremath{1.21^{+0.41}_{0.31}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttww}{\ensuremath{0.86^{+0.42}_{0.32}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbww}{\ensuremath{0.74^{+0.61}_{0.41}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwzz}{\ensuremath{0.88^{+0.38}_{0.26}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggzz}{\ensuremath{1.06^{+0.44}_{0.31}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttzz}{\ensuremath{0.76^{+0.43}_{0.30}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbzz}{\ensuremath{0.65^{+0.59}_{0.37}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwgg}{\ensuremath{0.83^{+0.27}_{0.22}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzzgg}{\ensuremath{0.92^{+0.38}_{0.27}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttgg}{\ensuremath{0.71^{+0.43}_{0.25}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbgg}{\ensuremath{0.63^{+0.44}_{0.35}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwtt}{\ensuremath{1.15^{+0.68}_{0.44}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzztt}{\ensuremath{1.31^{+0.81}_{0.48}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggtt}{\ensuremath{1.41^{+0.75}_{0.45}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbtt}{\ensuremath{0.87^{+0.69}_{0.49}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwbb}{\ensuremath{1.32^{+1.57}_{0.59}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzzbb}{\ensuremath{1.48^{+1.85}_{0.70}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggbb}{\ensuremath{1.60^{+1.86}_{0.70}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttbb}{\ensuremath{1.14^{+1.34}_{0.52}}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzzwwTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.54,2.18]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggwwTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.67,2.22]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttwwTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.30,1.90]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbwwTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0,00,2.30]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwzzTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.44,1.78]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggzzTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.54,2.16]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttzzTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.26,1.80]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbzzTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.00,2.16]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwggTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.44,1.48]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzzggTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.44,1.78]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttggTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.26,1.45]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbggTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.00,1.76]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwttTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.50,3.22]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzzttTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.54,3.79]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggttTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.67,3.76]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRbbttTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.00,2.84]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRwwbbTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.41,]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRzzbbTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.44,]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRggbbTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.54,]}\xspace} \newcommand{\DRttbbTwoSig}{\ensuremath{[0.33,]}\xspace} \)
\( \def\muf{\mu_\mathrm{ggH,ttH}} \def\muv{\mu_\mathrm{VBF,VH}} \)
Parameterization used to scale the expected SM Higgs boson yields of the different production and decay modes when obtaining the results presented in next table. The $\muf$ and $\muv$ parameters are introduced to reduce the dependency of the results on the SM expectation
\begin{array}{cccccc} \hline \text{Bestfit} ~\lambda_\text{col,row} & \hgg & \hzz & \hww & \htt & \hbb \\\hline \hgg & 1 & \DRzzgg & \DRwwgg & \DRttgg & \DRbbgg \\\hzz & \DRggzz & 1 & \DRwwzz & \DRttzz & \DRbbzz \\\hww & \DRggww & \DRzzww & 1 & \DRttww & \DRbbww \\\htt & \DRggtt & \DRzztt & \DRwwtt & 1 & \DRbbtt \\\hbb & \DRggbb & \DRzzbb & \DRwwbb & \DRttbb & 1 \\\hline \end{array}
The bestfit results and 68% CL confidence intervals for signal strength ratios of the decay mode in each column and the decay mode in each row, as modelled by the parameterization in previous table. When the likelihood of the data is scanned as a function of each individual parameter, the three other parameters in the same row, as well the production cross sections modifiers $\muf$ and $\muv$, are profiled. Since each row corresponds to an independent fit to data, the relation $\lambda_{yy,xx}=1/\lambda_{xx,yy}$ is only approximately satisfied.
Plot  Caption 

Distribution of the profile likelihood ratio $q_\lambda$ between different assumptions for the structure of the matrix of signal strengths for the production processes and decay modes both for pseudodata samples generated under the SM hypothesis and the value observed in data. The likelihood in the numerator is that for the data under a model of a general rank 1 matrix, expected if the observations are due to a single particle and of which the SM is a particular case. The likelihood in the denominator is that for the data under a "saturated model'' with as many parameters as there are matrix elements. The arrow represents the observed value in data, $q_\lambda^\text{obs}$. Under the SM hypothesis, the probability to find a value of $q_\lambda \geq q_\lambda^\text{obs}$ is $(7.9\pm0.3)\%$, where the uncertainty reflects only the finite number of pseudodata samples generated. 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

2D test statistics 

2D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 
The coupling scale factors to fermions and vector bosons are expressed in terms of a mass scaling parameter $\epsilon$ and a \u201cvacuum expectation value\u201d parameter $M$, described in arXiv:1207.1693. The coupling scale factors to fermions are $\kappa_{f,i}=v\cdot m_{f,i}^{\epsilon} / M^{1+\epsilon}$ and the coupling scale factors to vector bosons are $\kappa_{V,j}=v\cdot m_{V,j}^{2\epsilon} / M^{1+2\epsilon}$, where $v\approx246$ GeV is the SM vacuum expectation value, $m_{f,i}$ are the fermion masses, and $m_{V,i}$ are the vector boson masses. The SM expectation of $\kappa_{f,i}=\kappa_{V,i}=1$ is recovered in the double limit of $\epsilon=0$ and $M=v$.
Plot  Caption 

Summary of the fits for deviations in the coupling for the generic fiveparameter model not effective loop couplings. In this model, loopinduced couplings are assumed to follow the SM structure as in arXiv:1307.1347. The best fit values of the parameters are shown, with the corresponding 68% and 95% CL intervals.  
2D test statistics 

Summary of the fits for deviations in the coupling for the generic fiveparameter model not effective loop couplings, expressed as function of the particle mass. For the fermions, the values of the fitted yukawa couplings hff are shown, while for vector bosons the squareroot of the coupling for the hVV vertex divided by twice the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs boson field. Particle masses for leptons and weak boson, and the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs boson are taken from the PDG. For the top quark the same mass used in theoretical calculations is used (172.5 GeV) and for the bottom quark the running mass m_{b}(m_{H}=125.0 GeV)=2.76 GeV is used. In this model, loopinduced couplings are assumed to follow the SM structure as in arXiv:1307.1347. The solid black line with 68% and 95% CL bands are taken from the fit to data with the model $(M,\epsilon)$. 
Plot  Caption 

2D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

Likelihood scans for parameters in a model with coupling scaling factors for the SM particles, one coupling at a time while profiling the remaining five together with all other nuisance parameters; from top to bottom: $\kappa_{V}$ (W and Z bosons), $\kappa_{b}$ (bottom quarks), $\kappa_{\tau}$ (tau leptons), $\kappa_{t}$ (top quarks), $\kappa_{g}$ (gluons; effective coupling), and $\kappa_{\gamma}$ (photons; effective coupling). The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals. 
Plot  Caption 

Summary of the fits for deviations in the coupling modifier ratios for the general sevenparameter model with effective loop couplings. The best fit of the parameters are shown, with the corresponding 68% and 95% CL intervals. 
Plot  Caption 

The likelihood scan versus 

The likelihood scan versus 

The 2D likelihood scan for the BR_{inv} and BR_{undet} parameters for a combined analysis of the H(inv) search data and visible decay channels. The cross indicates the bestfit values. The solid, dashed, and dotted contours show the 68%, 95%, and 99.7% CL confidence regions, respectively. The diamond represents the SM expectation, (BR_{inv}, BR_{undet}) = (0, 0).  
The likelihood scan versus 
Plot  Caption 

Summary plot of likelihood scan results for the different parameters of interest in benchmark models from the LHC XS WG recommendations (arXiv:1307.1347) separated by dotted lines. The BR_{BSM} value at the bottom is obtained for the model with three parameters (κ_{g},κ_{γ},BR_{BSM}). The inner bars represent the 68% CL confidence intervals while the outer bars represent the 95% CL confidence intervals. The list of parameters for each model and the numerical values of the intervals are also provided in Table 12 of the paper. 
Plot  Caption 

Values of the bestfit $\MH$ for the combination (solid vertical line) and for H→γγ and H→ZZ→4ℓ final states separately. The vertical band shows the combined uncertainty. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the bestfit $\MH$ values for the individual channels. 
Plot  Caption 

Values of the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} for the combination (solid vertical line) and for subcombinations by predominant decay mode and additional tags targeting a particular production mechanism. The vertical band shows the overall σ/σ_{SM} uncertainty. The σ/σ_{SM} ratio denotes the production cross section times the relevant branching fractions, relative to the SM expectation. The horizontal bars indicate the ±1 standard deviation uncertainties in the bestfit σ/σ_{SM} values for the individual modes; they include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

Summary of the fits to the 7 TeV data assuming independent signal strengths for each of the four production modes, while the decay branching fractions are assumed to be as in the SM. The best fit of the signal strengths are shown, with the corresponding 68% and 95% CL intervals.  
Summary of the fits to the 8 TeV data assuming independent signal strengths for each of the four production modes, while the decay branching fractions are assumed to be as in the SM. The best fit of the signal strengths are shown, with the corresponding 68% and 95% CL intervals. 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 
Plot  Caption 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 

1D test statistics 