data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6fe5b/6fe5bf0221695bdd85f3aa88281ba250510124c2" alt="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/HIGG-2012-17/fig_01a.png"
We all recall that the peak was much higher than the expected peak, if the Higgs is at 125 GeV.
In summer 2012, the same 2011 data was analyzed again, when it was known that CMS had also seen something at the energy, and it was graphed as follows: https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2012-091/fig_09a.png
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6e5a3/6e5a3ffaa304400db8ffb3a0fcd507f4aac5a59e" alt="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2012-091/fig_09a.png"
Even though the bump in this reselected 2011 sample looks in a sense less clear than in the original 2011 sample, it now fits much better with the prediction. I was even told that the sigma value of the second graph is higher than that of the first. (Is that so?)
Maybe somebody can explain this? Did I use the correct graphs? Is there some mistake in this post?
Update: This seems to be such a touchy issue that nobody dares to comment, not even anonymously. That is a really bad sign.