CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-HIG-16-037
Search for a neutral MSSM Higgs boson decaying into $\tau\tau$ with 12.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
CMS Collaboration
November 2016
Abstract: A search for a neutral Higgs boson is presented, using the decay into two tau leptons. The analysis uses 12.9 fb$^{-1}$ of pp collision data collected by CMS in 2016, at a centre of mass energy of 13 TeV. The results are interpreted in the context of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. No excess above the expectation from the standard model is found and upper limits are set on the production cross sections times branching fraction for masses between 90 and 3200 GeV. Regions of phase space of two different benchmark scenarios are also excluded.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ;
Figures & Tables Summary Additional Figures & Material References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf 		Figure 1:
Leading order diagrams of the a) gluon fusion and b) four-flavour and c) five-flavour schemes for the b associated production of the Higgs boson in the MSSM.

png pdf 		Figure 1-a:
Leading order diagram of the gluon fusion for the production of the Higgs boson in the MSSM.

png pdf 		Figure 1-b:
Leading order diagram of the four-flavour scheme for the b associated production of the Higgs boson in the MSSM.

png pdf 		Figure 1-c:
Leading order diagram of the five-flavour scheme for the b associated production of the Higgs boson in the MSSM.

png pdf 		Figure 2:
Distribution of the transverse mass variable for events in the $\mu \tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel. The yields of all backgrounds are scaled following the final fit described in section 7, except for the W+jets background which is normalized using the high $m_{\mathrm{T}}$ region as indicated (see text). The ``Bkg. uncertainty'' band represents the systematic uncertainty on the background yield as determined in this fit in combination with the statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal region is defined by $m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 40 GeV as indicated, while the equivalent cut in the $\mathrm{ e } \tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel is $m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 50 GeV.

png pdf 		Figure 3:
Distribution of the $D_{\zeta }$ variable for events in the $\mathrm{ e } \mu $ channel. The yields of all backgrounds are scaled following the final fit described in section 7. The ``Bkg. uncertainty'' band represents the systematic uncertainty on the background yield as determined in this fit in combination with the statistical uncertainty in each bin. The signal region is defined by $D_{\zeta } > -$20 GeV as indicated.

png pdf 		Figure 4:
Illustration of the full set of signal and control regions which are included in the final fit for this analysis described in section 7. In the case of the control regions, the colour indicates which background is most constrained by the region.

png pdf 		Figure 5:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\mu \tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 5-a:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\mu \tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 5-b:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $\mu \tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 6:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 6-a:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category the $\mathrm{e}\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 6-b:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 7:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\mu $ channel

png pdf 		Figure 7-a:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\mu $ channel

png pdf 		Figure 7-b:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\mu $ channel

png pdf 		Figure 8:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\tau _{\rm {h}}\tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 8-a:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\tau _{\rm {h}}\tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 8-b:
Post-fit plot of the total transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $\tau _{\rm {h}}\tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel

png pdf 		Figure 9:
Expected and observed limits on cross-section times branching fraction for a) the gluon fusion process (gg$\phi $) and b) the b-associated production process (bb$\phi $), resulting from the combination of all four channels. The narrow width approximation is used for the signal.

png pdf 		Figure 9-a:
Expected and observed limits on cross-section times branching fraction for the gluon fusion process (gg$\phi $), resulting from the combination of all four channels. The narrow width approximation is used for the signal.

png pdf 		Figure 9-b:
Expected and observed limits on cross-section times branching fraction for the b-associated production process (bb$\phi $), resulting from the combination of all four channels. The narrow width approximation is used for the signal.

png pdf 		Figure 10:
Comparison between the expected limits on cross-section times branching fraction for a) the gluon fusion process (gg$\phi $) and b) the b-associated production process (bb$\phi $) in each final state channel.

png pdf 		Figure 10-a:
Comparison between the expected limits on cross-section times branching fraction for the gluon fusion process (gg$\phi $) in each final state channel.

png pdf 		Figure 10-b:
Comparison between the expected limits on cross-section times branching fraction for the b-associated production process (bb$\phi $) in each final state channel.

png pdf 		Figure 11:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for selected Higgs boson masses between 100 GeV and 3200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-a:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 100 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-b:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 125 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-c:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 140 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-d:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 160 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-e:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-f:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 350 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-g:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 700 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-h:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 1000 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-i:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 1600 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-j:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 2000 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-k:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 2600 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 11-l:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for gg$\phi $ vs bb$\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson mass 3200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Figure 12:
Model dependent exclusion limits in the $m_{ {\mathrm {A}} }$-$\tan \beta $ plane, combining all channels, for a) the $m_{\phi}^{\text {mod+}}$ and b) hMSSM scenarios. In a) the red contour indicates the region which does not yield a Higgs boson consistent with a mass of 125 GeV within the theoretical uncertainties of $\pm$3 GeV.

png pdf 		Figure 12-a:
Model dependent exclusion limits in the $m_{ {\mathrm {A}} }$-$\tan \beta $ plane, combining all channels, for the $m_{\phi}^{\text {mod+}}$ scenario. The red contour indicates the region which does not yield a Higgs boson consistent with a mass of 125 GeV within the theoretical uncertainties of $\pm$3 GeV.

png pdf 		Figure 12-b:
Model dependent exclusion limits in the $m_{ {\mathrm {A}} }$-$\tan \beta $ plane, combining all channels, for the hMSSM scenario.
Tables

png pdf
 Table 1:
Summary of the lepton selections in each channel.
Summary
A search for neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM decaying into the $\tau\tau$ final state has been presented, using the $\mu\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, $\mathrm{ e }\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$, $\tau_{\mathrm{h}}\tau_{\mathrm{h}}$ and $\mathrm{ e }\mu$ final states. The dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 12.9 fb$^{-1}$, recorded by the CMS detector at 13 TeV centre-of-mass energy in 2016. No evidence for a signal has been found and exclusion limits on the production cross section times branching fraction for the gluon fusion and b-associated production processes are presented. The results are also interpreted in the context of two MSSM benchmark scenarios, where exclusions are set as a function of $m_{\mathrm{A}}$ and $\tan \beta$.
Additional Figures

png pdf 		Additional Figure 1:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\mu \tau _{\mathrm{h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 1-a:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\mu \tau _{\mathrm{h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 1-b:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $\mu \tau _{\mathrm{h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 2:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $e\tau _{\mathrm{h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 2-a:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $e\tau _{\mathrm{h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 2-b:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $e\tau _{\mathrm{h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 3:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 3-a:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 3-b:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\mathrm{e}\mu$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 4:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in (a) the no b-tag category and (b) the b-tag category of the $\tau _{\rm {h}}\tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 4-a:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the no b-tag category of the $\tau _{\rm {h}}\tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 4-b:
Post-fit plot of the transverse mass distribution in the b-tag category of the $\tau _{\rm {h}}\tau _{\rm {h}}$ channel, showing the low mass region. Note that the signal prediction isn't shown, since it is only visible compared with background in the high mass region.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 5:
Expected and observed limits on cross-section times branching fraction for a) the gluon fusion process (gg$\phi $) and b) the b-associated production process (bb$\phi $), resulting from the combination of all four channels. In this version of the plots the SM Higgs of 125 GeV is included in the background only expectation.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 5-a:
Expected and observed limits on cross-section times branching fraction for the gluon fusion process (gg$\phi $), resulting from the combination of all four channels. In this version of the plots the SM Higgs of 125 GeV is included in the background only expectation.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 5-b:
Expected and observed limits on cross-section times branching fraction for the b-associated production process (bb$\phi $), resulting from the combination of all four channels. In this version of the plots the SM Higgs of 125 GeV is included in the background only expectation.

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-a:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-b:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-c:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-d:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-e:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-f:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-g:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-h:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-i:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-j:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-k:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 6-l:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 90 GeV and 1200 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 7:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 1400 GeV and 2900 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 7-a:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 1400 GeV and 2900 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 7-b:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 1400 GeV and 2900 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 7-c:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 1400 GeV and 2900 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 7-d:
2D likelihood scan of cross-section time branching fraction for $gg\phi $ vs $bb\phi $ production processes, for Higgs boson masses between 1400 GeV and 2900 GeV. The best fit point (black cross) and the 1 and 2 sigma contours are shown for the observed data. Also shown is the best fit value for an Asimov dataset containing background plus the SM Higgs with mass 125 GeV (red diamond).

png pdf 		Additional Figure 8:
Model dependent exclusion limits in the $m_{ {\mathrm {A}} }$-$\tan\beta $ plane, combining all channels, for the $m_{\text{h}}^{\text {mod+}}$ scenario. The red contour indicates the region which does not yield a Higgs boson consistent with a mass of 125 GeV within the theoretical uncertainties of $\pm$3 GeV. The blue lines indicate the expected (dashed) and observed (solid) exclusions obtained from the most recent Run 1 CMS search for $\phi \to \tau \tau $ [1].
Additional Material
Numerical values of ggH and bbH cross section times BR scans (2D database)

Please read the file for instructions: README

Likelihood scan in 2D plane:
  • $\sigma( \mathrm{gg}\phi) \mathcal{B}(\phi \to \tau\tau)$ (= $x$-axis) versus $\sigma( \mathrm{bb}\phi )\mathcal{B}(\phi \to \tau\tau )$ (= $y$-axis) at the mass $m_{\phi}$
  • 40000 points in each plane scanned

Performed for
  • 2DL_BG_data : observation vs background
  • 2DL_BG_asimov : asimov (sum of backgrounds) vs background
  • 2DL_SM_data : observation vs background+SM-Higgs
  • 2DL_SM_asimov : asimov (sum of backgrounds+SM-Higgs) vs background+SM-Higgs
The files contain all points stored as
  • $ \sigma( \mathrm{gg}\phi ) \mathcal{B} (\phi \to \tau\tau) $
  • $ \sigma( \mathrm{bb}\phi ) \mathcal{B} (\phi \to \tau\tau) $
  • $(1/2) \chi^2$

Notes
  • Likelihood is restricted to positive values for $\mathrm{gg}\phi$/$\mathrm{bb}\phi$
  • best-fit found at $\chi^2 =$ 0
  • 1$\sigma$ contour found at $\chi^2 =$ 2.30
  • 2$\sigma$ sigma contour found at $\chi^2 =$ 5.99
The 125 GeV mass point is interpolated based on nearby masses.
$ m_{\phi} = $ 90 GeV BG data 90BG asimov 90SM data 90SM asimov 90
$ m_{\phi} = $ 100 GeV BG data 100BG asimov 100SM data 100SM asimov 100
$ m_{\phi} = $ 110 GeV BG data 110BG asimov 110SM data 110SM asimov 110
$ m_{\phi} = $ 120 GeV BG data 120BG asimov 120SM data 120SM asimov 120
$ m_{\phi} = $ 125 GeV BG data 125BG asimov 125SM data 125SM asimov 125
$ m_{\phi} = $ 130 GeV BG data 130BG asimov 130SM data 130SM asimov 130
$ m_{\phi} = $ 140 GeV BG data 140BG asimov 140SM data 140SM asimov 140
$ m_{\phi} = $ 160 GeV BG data 160BG asimov 160SM data 160SM asimov 160
$ m_{\phi} = $ 180 GeV BG data 180BG asimov 180SM data 180SM asimov 180
$ m_{\phi} = $ 200 GeV BG data 200BG asimov 200SM data 200SM asimov 200
$ m_{\phi} = $ 250 GeV BG data 250BG asimov 250SM data 250SM asimov 250
$ m_{\phi} = $ 350 GeV BG data 350BG asimov 350SM data 350SM asimov 350
$ m_{\phi} = $ 400 GeV BG data 400BG asimov 400SM data 400SM asimov 400
$ m_{\phi} = $ 450 GeV BG data 450BG asimov 450SM data 450SM asimov 450
$ m_{\phi} = $ 500 GeV BG data 500BG asimov 500SM data 500SM asimov 500
$ m_{\phi} = $ 700 GeV BG data 700BG asimov 700SM data 700SM asimov 700
$ m_{\phi} = $ 800 GeV BG data 800BG asimov 800SM data 800SM asimov 800
$ m_{\phi} = $ 900 GeV BG data 900BG asimov 900SM data 900SM asimov 900
$ m_{\phi} = $ 1000 GeV BG data 1000BG asimov 1000SM data 1000SM asimov 1000
$ m_{\phi} = $ 1200 GeV BG data 1200BG asimov 1200SM data 1200SM asimov 1200
$ m_{\phi} = $ 1400 GeV BG data 1400BG asimov 1400SM data 1400SM asimov 1400
$ m_{\phi} = $ 1600 GeV BG data 1600BG asimov 1600SM data 1600SM asimov 1600
$ m_{\phi} = $ 1800 GeV BG data 1800BG asimov 1800SM data 1800SM asimov 1800
$ m_{\phi} = $ 2000 GeV BG data 2000BG asimov 2000SM data 2000SM asimov 2000
$ m_{\phi} = $ 2300 GeV BG data 2300BG asimov 2300SM data 2300SM asimov 2300
$ m_{\phi} = $ 2600 GeV BG data 2600BG asimov 2600SM data 2600SM asimov 2600
$ m_{\phi} = $ 2900 GeV BG data 2900BG asimov 2900SM data 2900SM asimov 2900
$ m_{\phi} = $ 3200 GeV BG data 3200BG asimov 3200SM data 3200SM asimov 3200
References
1 ATLAS Collaboration Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PLB 716 (2012) 1--29 1207.7214
2 CMS Collaboration Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC PLB 716 (2012) 30--61 CMS-HIG-12-028
1207.7235
3 F. Englert and R. Brout Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons PRL 13 (1964) 321
4 P. W. Higgs Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields PL12 (1964) 132
5 P. W. Higgs Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons PRL 13 (1964) 508
6 G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles PRL 13 (1964) 585
7 P. W. Higgs Spontaneous Symmetry Breakdown without Massless Bosons PR145 (1966) 1156
8 T. W. B. Kibble Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories PR155 (1967) 1554
9 ATLAS, CMS Collaboration Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in $ pp $ Collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments PRL 114 (2015) 191803 1503.07589
10 ATLAS, CMS Collaboration Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2016) 045 1606.02266
11 ATLAS Collaboration Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector EPJC. 75 (2015), no. 10, 476 1506.05669
12 CMS Collaboration Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV PRD 92 (2015), no. 1, 012004 CMS-HIG-14-018
1411.3441
13 A. Djouadi The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the minimal supersymmetric model PR 459 (2008) 1--241 hep-ph/0503173
14 G. C. Branco et al. Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models PR 516 (2012) 1--102 1106.0034
15 Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman Extension of the Algebra of Poincare Group Generators and Violation of p Invariance JEPTL 13 (1971)323
16 J. Wess and B. Zumino Supergauge transformations in four dimensions Nucl. Phys. B. 70 (1974) 39
17 M. Carena et al. MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios after the Discovery of a Higgs-like Particle EPJC. 73 (2013), no. 9 1302.7033
18 E. Bagnaschi et al. Benchmark scenarios for low $ \tan \beta $ in the MSSM Technical Report LHCHXSWG-2015-002, CERN, Geneva, Aug
19 CMS Collaboration Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions JHEP 10 (2014) 160 CMS-HIG-13-021
1408.3316
20 CMS Collaboration Search for additional neutral Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 7 and 8 TeV CMS-PAS-HIG-14-029 CMS-PAS-HIG-14-029
21 ATLAS Collaboration Search for neutral Higgs bosons of the minimal supersymmetric standard model in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP \bf 11 (2014) 056 1409.6064
22 CMS Collaboration Search for a neutral MSSM Higgs boson decaying into $ \tau \tau $ at 13 TeV CMS-PAS-HIG-16-006 CMS-PAS-HIG-16-006
23 ATLAS Collaboration Search for Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model Higgs bosons $ H/A $ and for a $ Z^{\prime} $ boson in the $ \tau \tau $ final state produced in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector EPJC. 76 (2016), no. 11, 585 1608.00890
24 ATLAS Collaboration Search for Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model Higgs Bosons $ H/A $ in the $ \tau\tau $ final state in up to 13.3 fb$ ^{-1} $ of pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector ATLAS Conference Note ATLAS-CONF-2016-085
25 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
26 CMS Collaboration Particle--Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and $ E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}} $ CDS
27 CMS Collaboration Commissioning of the Particle-flow Event Reconstruction with the first LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector CDS
28 K. Rose Deterministic annealing for clustering, compression, classification, regression, and related optimization problems Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (Nov, 1998) 2210--2239
29 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
30 H. Voss, A. H\"ocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt TMVA, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT in XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40 2007 physics/0703039
31 CMS Collaboration Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collision events at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV JINST 7 (2012) P10002 CMS-MUO-10-004
1206.4071
32 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC. 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
33 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Dispelling the $ N^{3} $ myth for the $ k_t $ jet-finder PLB 641 (2006) 57 hep-ph/0512210
34 CMS Collaboration Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) P04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
35 CMS Collaboration Performance of reconstruction and identification of tau leptons in their decays to hadrons and tau neutrino in LHC Run-2 CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002 CMS-PAS-TAU-16-002
36 CMS Collaboration Reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ lepton decays to hadrons and $\mu_{\tau}$ at CMS JINST 11 (2016), no. 01, P01019 CMS-TAU-14-001
1510.07488
37 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in pp data at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P02006 CMS-JME-13-003
1411.0511
38 T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 CPC 178 (2008) 852--867 0710.3820
39 J. Alwall et al. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations JHEP 07 (2014) 079 1405.0301
40 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: s- and t-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111, , [Erratum: JHEP02,011(2010)] 0907.4076
41 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in the lepton+jets channel in pp collisions at 8 TeV CDS
42 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV EPJC. 75 (2015), no. 11, 542 CMS-TOP-12-028
1505.04480
43 CMS Collaboration Measurements of inclusive $ \mathrm{ W } $ and $ \mathrm{ Z } $ cross sections in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV JHEP 01 (2011) 080 CMS-EWK-10-002
1012.2466
44 CMS Collaboration CMS Luminosity Measurement for the 2015 Data Taking Period CMS-PAS-LUM-15-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-15-001
45 A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt Parton distributions for the LHC EPJC. 63 (2009) 189--285 0901.0002
46 A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt Uncertainties on alpha(S) in global PDF analyses and implications for predicted hadronic cross sections EPJC. 64 (2009) 653--680 0905.3531
47 The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector 1610.07922
48 L. Moneta et al. The RooStats Project PoS ACAT2010 (2010) 057 1009.1003
49 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties 1307.1347
50 R. V. Harlander, S. Liebler, and H. Mantler SusHi: A program for the calculation of Higgs production in gluon fusion and bottom-quark annihilation in the Standard Model and the MSSM CPC 184 (2013) 1605--1617 1212.3249
51 M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. M. Zerwas Higgs boson production at the LHC Nucl. Phys. B. 453 (1995) 17--82 hep-ph/9504378
52 R. V. Harlander and M. Steinhauser Supersymmetric Higgs production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order JHEP 09 (2004) 066 hep-ph/0409010
53 R. Harlander and P. Kant Higgs production and decay: Analytic results at next-to-leading order QCD JHEP 12 (2005) 015 hep-ph/0509189
54 G. Degrassi and P. Slavich NLO QCD bottom corrections to Higgs boson production in the MSSM JHEP 11 (2010) 044 1007.3465
55 G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, and P. Slavich NLO QCD corrections to pseudoscalar Higgs production in the MSSM JHEP 08 (2011) 128 1107.0914
56 G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, and P. Slavich On the NLO QCD Corrections to the Production of the Heaviest Neutral Higgs Scalar in the MSSM EPJC. 72 (2012) 2032 1204.1016
57 R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore Next-to-next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadron colliders PRL 88 (2002) 201801 hep-ph/0201206
58 C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD Nucl. Phys. B. 646 (2002) 220--256 hep-ph/0207004
59 V. Ravindran, J. Smith, and W. L. van Neerven NNLO corrections to the total cross-section for Higgs boson production in hadron hadron collisions Nucl. Phys. B. 665 (2003) 325--366 hep-ph/0302135
60 R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore Production of a pseudoscalar Higgs boson at hadron colliders at next-to-next-to leading order JHEP 10 (2002) 017 hep-ph/0208096
61 C. Anastasiou and K. Melnikov Pseudoscalar Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD PRD. 67 (2003) 037501 hep-ph/0208115
62 U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi, and A. Vicini Two loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays PLB. 595 (2004) 432--441 hep-ph/0404071
63 R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi, and A. Vicini On the Generalized Harmonic Polylogarithms of One Complex Variable CPC 182 (2011) 1253--1264 1007.1891
64 S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, 1, and M. Spira Higgs radiation off bottom quarks at the Tevatron and the CERN LHC PRD 70 (2004) 074010 hep-ph/0309204
65 S. Dawson, C. B. Jackson, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth Exclusive Higgs boson production with bottom quarks at hadron colliders PRD 69 (Apr, 2004) 074027
66 R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore Higgs boson production in bottom quark fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order PRD 68 (Jul, 2003) 013001
67 R. Harlander, M. Kramer, and M. Schumacher Bottom-quark associated Higgs-boson production: reconciling the four- and five-flavour scheme approach 1112.3478
68 S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein FeynHiggs: A Program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral CP even Higgs bosons in the MSSM CPC 124 (2000) 76--89 hep-ph/9812320
69 S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein The Masses of the neutral CP - even Higgs bosons in the MSSM: Accurate analysis at the two loop level EPJC. 9 (1999) 343--366 hep-ph/9812472
70 G. Degrassi et al. Towards high precision predictions for the MSSM Higgs sector EPJC. 28 (2003) 133--143 hep-ph/0212020
71 M. Frank et al. The Higgs Boson Masses and Mixings of the Complex MSSM in the Feynman-Diagrammatic Approach JHEP 02 (2007) 047 hep-ph/0611326
72 T. Hahn et al. High-Precision Predictions for the Light CP -Even Higgs Boson Mass of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model PRL 112 (2014), no. 14, 141801 1312.4937
73 A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension CPC 108 (1998) 56--74 hep-ph/9704448
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN