CMS-PAS-HIG-17-010

CMS-PAS-HIG-17-010
Inclusive search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV using $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow \mathrm{b\bar{\mathrm{b}}}$ decays
CMS Collaboration
May 2017

Abstract: A search for the standard model Higgs boson produced with high transverse momentum decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair has been performed using a data set of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV collected with the CMS experiment at the LHC. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb $^{-1}$ . A high-transverse-momentum Higgs boson decaying to $\mathrm{b\bar{\mathrm{b}}}$ is reconstructed as a single jet and identified based on jet substructure and dedicated b-tagging techniques. The analysis strategy is validated with $\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow \mathrm{b\bar{\mathrm{b}}}$ decays. The $\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow \mathrm{b\bar{\mathrm{b}}}$ process is observed with a local significance of 5.1 standard deviations for the first time in the single jet topology. For a Higgs boson mass of 125 GeV, an excess of events is observed above the expected background with a local significance of 1.5 standard deviations. The measured cross section of $\mathrm{H}(\mathrm{b\bar{\mathrm{b}}})$ production for ${p_\mathrm{T}}>$ 450 GeV is 74 $_{-49}^{+51}$ fb.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PRL 120 (2018) 071802. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures & Tables	Summary	Additional Figures	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Data to simulation comparison of the $\rho$ (top-left), ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ (top-right), ${\mathrm {N}_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ (bottom-left) and double-b tagger (bottom-right) variables, after the requirement on the jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and the online selection.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Data to simulation comparison of the $\rho$ variable, after the requirement on the jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and the online selection.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Data to simulation comparison of the ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ variable, after the requirement on the jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and the online selection.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: Data to simulation comparison of the ${\mathrm {N}_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ variable, after the requirement on the jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and the online selection.
png pdf	Figure 1-d: Data to simulation comparison of the double-b tagger variable, after the requirement on the jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and the online selection.
png pdf	Figure 2: The ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution for simulated signal events after all the selection criteria in both the passing and failing regions. The yield for each process is normalized to its cross section.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: The ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution for simulated signal events after all the selection criteria in the passing region. The yield for each process is normalized to its cross section.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: The ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution for simulated signal events after all the selection criteria in the failing region. The yield for each process is normalized to its cross section.
png pdf	Figure 3: double-b tagger vs. jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$
png pdf	Figure 4: Post-fit ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distributions in data for the pass and fail regions and combined ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ categories by using a polynomial 2nd order in $\rho$ and 1st order in ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ . The features at 166 GeV and 180 GeV in the ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution are due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ , which affects each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category differently.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Post-fit ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution in data for the pass fail region and combined ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ categories by using a polynomial 2nd order in $\rho$ and 1st order in ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ . The features at 166 GeV and 180 GeV in the ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution are due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ , which affects each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category differently.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Post-fit ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distributions in data for the pass and fail regions and combined ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ categories by using a polynomial 2nd order in $\rho$ and 1st order in ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ . The features at 166 GeV and 180 GeV in the ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ distribution are due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ , which affects each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category differently.
png pdf	Figure 5: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan in data as a function of the H signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ H }$ (upper left), Z signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ Z }$ (upper right), and both signal strengths ( $\mu _\mathrm{ H } ,\mu _\mathrm{ Z }$ ) (lower).
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan in data as a function of the H signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ H }$ .
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan in data as a function of the Z signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ Z }$ .
png pdf	Figure 5-c: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan in data as a function of both signal strengths ( $\mu _\mathrm{ H } ,\mu _\mathrm{ Z }$ ).

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Systematic uncertainties and their relative size.
png pdf	Table 2: Fitted signal strength and observed significance of the Higgs and Z signals.

Summary

An inclusive search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs with

$p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 450 GeV and reconstructed as a single jet has been presented using a data sample of proton-proton collisions collected by CMS corresponding to 35.9 fb

$^{-1}$ at

$\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV. The Higgs jets are reconstructed with the anti-

$k_{\mathrm{T}}$ algorithm with radius

$R=$ 0.8 and identified with the CMS double-b tag algorithm. The signal is then extracted on top of the falling QCD soft drop mass distribution (including contributions from W, Z, and top background processes) using an entirely data-driven QCD background prediction.

The analysis strategy is validated by extracting the signal strength of the Z+jets process. The Z+jets process is observed for the first time in the single-jet topology with a significance of 5.1

$\sigma$ .

The Higgs production is measured with a signal strength parameter of

$\mu_\mathrm{ H }=$ 2.3

$_{-{1.6} }^{+{1.8} }$ and an observed significance of 1.5

$\sigma$ (0.7

$\sigma$ expected for the standard model Higgs) when including Higgs

$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectrum corrections accounting for NLO and finite top mass effects. The measured cross section of the

$\mathrm{ H }(\mathrm{ b \bar{b} })$ production for

$p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 450 GeV is 74

$_{-{49} }^{+{51} }$ fb, which is consistent with the SM expectation within the uncertainty.

Additional Figures
png pdf	Additional Figure 1: Generator level Higgs ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ distribution for the gluon fusion production mode. The CMS default POWHEG sample and the corrected spectrum to account for both higher order and finite top mass effects are compared.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ categories of the fit from 450-550 GeV (450-500, 500-550 from top to bottom). Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-a: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 450-550 GeV, double b-tag $>$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-b: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 450-550 GeV, double b-tag $<$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-c: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 500-550 GeV, double b-tag $>$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-d: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 500-550 GeV, double b-tag $<$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 3: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ categories of the fit from 550-675 GeV (550-600, 600-675 from top to bottom). Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-a: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 550-600 GeV, double b-tag $<$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-b: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 600-675 GeV, double b-tag $>$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-c: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 550-600 GeV, double b-tag $<$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-d: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 600-675 GeV, double b-tag $>$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 4: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ categories of the fit from 675-1000 GeV (675-800,800-1000 from top to bottom). Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-a: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 675-800 GeV, double b-tag $<$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-b: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 675-800 GeV, double b-tag $>$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-c: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 800-1000 GeV, double b-tag $<$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-d: Soft drop jet mass ( ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ ) distribution for the different ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category of the fit from 800-1000 GeV, double b-tag $>$ 0.9. Data are shown as the black points. The QCD background prediction, including uncertainties, is shown in the gray boxes. Contributions from the W, Z, and H boson signal are indicated as well. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data, after the subtraction of multijet and ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ backgrounds, to its uncertainty is shown. The scale on the x-axis differs for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 5: The two-dimensional polynomial transfer factor $\mathcal {F}$ is shown as function of ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (left) and $\rho$ and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (right).
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-a: The two-dimensional polynomial transfer factor $\mathcal {F}$ is shown as function of ${m_{\mathrm {SD}}}$ and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-b: The two-dimensional polynomial transfer factor $\mathcal {F}$ is shown as function of $\rho$ and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 6: Fitted signal strengths for the Higgs and Z boson signals for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category by floating the Z and H signal strength parameter respectively.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-a: Fitted signal strengths for the Higgs signal for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category by floating the Z and H signal strength parameter respectively.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6-b: Fitted signal strengths for the Z boson signal for each ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ category by floating the Z and H signal strength parameter respectively.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7: ${N_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ transformation map as a function of the jet $\rho$ and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ . The map corresponds to the 26% quantile of the N $_{\rm 2}^{\rm 1}$ distribution in simulated QCD multijet events. The N $_{\rm 2}^{\rm 1}$ distribution is mostly insensitive to the jet $\rho$ and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in the kinematic phase space considered for this analysis ( $-6 < \rho < 2.1$ ) and further decorrelated yielding the ${N_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ variable.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8: Soft-drop jet mass distribution that pass (left) and fail (right) the ${N_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ selection in the semileptonic ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ sample. Results of fits to data and simulation are shown.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-a: Soft-drop jet mass distribution that pass the ${N_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ selection in the semileptonic ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ sample. Results of fits to data and simulation are shown.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-b: Soft-drop jet mass distribution that fail the ${N_{\mathrm {2}}^{\mathrm {1,DDT}}}$ selection in the semileptonic ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ sample. Results of fits to data and simulation are shown.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan on the post-fit Asimov dataset as a function of the H signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ H }$ (upper left), Z signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ Z }$ (upper right), and both signal strengths $(\mu _\mathrm{ H },\mu _\mathrm{ Z })$ (lower).
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-a: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan on the post-fit Asimov dataset as a function of the H signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ H }$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-b: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan on the post-fit Asimov dataset as a function of the Z signal strength $\mu _\mathrm{ Z }$ .
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-c: Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta \log\mathcal {L}$ scan on the post-fit Asimov dataset as a function of the both H and Z signal strengths $(\mu _\mathrm{ H },\mu _\mathrm{ Z })$ .

References
1	A. Salam and J. C. Ward	On a Gauge Theory of Elementary Interactions	Nuovo Cim. 19 (1961) 165--170
2	S. Glashow	Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions	Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961) 579--588
3	S. Weinberg	A Model of Leptons	PRL 19 (1967) 1264--1266
4	F. Englert and R. Brout	Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons	PRL 13 (1964) 321--323
5	P. W. Higgs	Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons	PRL 13 (1964) 508--509
6	G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble	Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particless	PRL 13 (1964) 585--587
7	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
8	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
9	The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations 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	Technical Report ATLAS-CONF-2015-044,CMS-PAS-HIG-15-002, CERN, Geneva
10	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration	Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector		1610.07922
11	J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam	Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC	PRL 100 (2008) 242001	0802.2470
12	C. Grojean, E. Salvioni, M. Schlaffer, and A. Weiler	Very boosted Higgs in gluon fusion	JHEP 05 (2014) 022	1312.3317
13	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
14	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4---a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
15	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
16	G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano	$HW^{\pm}$ /HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO	JHEP 10 (2013) 083	1306.2542
17	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
18	J. Alwall et al.	Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions	EPJC 53 (2008) 473--500	0706.2569
19	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
20	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
21	S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re	A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX	JHEP 06 (2010) 043	1002.2581
22	Sjostrand, Torbjorn and Mrenna, Stephen and Skands, Peter	PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual	JHEP 05 (2006) 026	hep-ph/0603175
23	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands	A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1	CPC 178 (2008) 852--867	0710.3820
24	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016), no. 3, 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
25	P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo	Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune	EPJC 74 (2014) 3024	1404.5630
26	J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis	MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC	NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10	1007.3492
27	M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov	Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through O( $\alpha_S^4$ )	PRL 110 (2013) 252004	1303.6254
28	S. Kallweit et al.	NLO electroweak automation and precise predictions for W+multijet production at the LHC	JHEP 04 (2015) 012	1412.5157
29	S. Kallweit et al.	NLO QCD+EW predictions for V + jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging	JHEP 04 (2016) 021	1511.08692
30	S. Kallweit et al.	NLO QCD+EW automation and precise predictions for V+multijet production	in Proceedings, 50th Rencontres de Moriond, QCD and high energy interactions, 2015	1505.05704
31	J. M. Lindert et al.	Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds		1705.04664
32	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
33	U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover	Higgs Boson Production at Large Transverse Momentum in Hadronic Collisions	Nucl. Phys. B339 (1990) 38--66
34	D. de Florian, G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and D. Tommasini	Higgs boson production at the LHC: transverse momentum resummation effects in the H $\rightarrow$ 2gamma, H $\rightarrow$ WW $\rightarrow$ lnulnu and H $\rightarrow$ ZZ $\rightarrow$ 4l decay modes	JHEP 06 (2012) 132	1203.6321
35	M. Grazzini and H. Sargsyan	Heavy-quark mass effects in Higgs boson production at the LHC	JHEP 09 (2013) 129	1306.4581
36	E. Bagnaschi and A. Vicini	The Higgs transverse momentum distribution in gluon fusion as a multiscale problem	JHEP 01 (2016) 056	1505.00735
37	R. Boughezal et al.	Higgs boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative QCD	JHEP 06 (2013) 072
38	R. Boughezal et al.	Higgs boson production in association with a jet at NNLO using jettiness subtraction	PLB 748 (2015) 5--8	1505.03893
39	R. Boughezal et al.	Color singlet production at NNLO in MCFM		1605.08011
40	X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, N. Glover, and M. Jaquier	Higgs plus one jet production at NNLO	in Proceedings, 12th International Symposium on Radiative Corrections (Radcor 2015) and LoopFest XIV (Radiative Corrections for the LHC and Future Colliders), Los Angeles, 2016	1604.04085
41	T. Neumann and C. Williams	The Higgs boson at high $p_T$	PRD 95 (2017), no. 1, 014004	1609.00367
42	M. Buschmann et al.	Mass Effects in the Higgs-Gluon Coupling: Boosted vs Off-Shell Production	JHEP 02 (2015) 038	1410.5806
43	R. Frederix, S. Frixione, E. Vryonidou, and M. Wiesemann	Heavy-quark mass effects in Higgs plus jets production	JHEP 08 (2016) 006	1604.03017
44	V. Hirschi and O. Mattelaer	Automated event generation for loop-induced processes	JHEP 10 (2015) 146	1507.00020
45	N. Greiner et al.	Phenomenological analysis of Higgs boson production through gluon fusion in association with jets	JHEP 01 (2016) 169	1506.01016
46	X. Chen, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and M. Jaquier	Precise QCD predictions for the production of Higgs + jet final states	PLB 740 (2015) 147--150	1408.5325
47	R. Boughezal et al.	Higgs boson production in association with a jet at next-to-next-to-leading order	PRL 115 (2015), no. 8, 082003	1504.07922
48	M. Cacciari et al.	Fully Differential Vector-Boson-Fusion Higgs Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order	PRL 115 (2015), no. 8, 082002	1506.02660
49	CMS Collaboration	Commissioning of the Particle-flow Event Reconstruction with the first LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector	CDS
50	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- $k_{t}$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
51	D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran	Pileup Per Particle Identification	JHEP 10 (2014) 059	1407.6013
52	D. Krohn, J. Thaler, and L.-T. Wang	Jet Trimming	JHEP 02 (2010) 084	0912.1342
53	M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam	Towards an understanding of jet substructure	JHEP 09 (2013) 029	1307.0007
54	A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler	Soft Drop	JHEP 05 (2014) 146	1402.2657
55	CMS Collaboration	Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data
56	I. Moult, L. Necib, and J. Thaler	New Angles on Energy Correlation Functions	JHEP 12 (2016) 153	1609.07483
57	A. J. Larkoski, G. P. Salam, and J. Thaler	Energy Correlation Functions for Jet Substructure	JHEP 06 (2013) 108	1305.0007
58	J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg	Identifying Boosted Objects with N-subjettiness	JHEP 03 (2011) 015	1011.2268
59	CMS Collaboration Collaboration	Identification of double-b quark jets in boosted event topologies	Technical Report CMS-PAS-BTV-15-002, CERN, Geneva
60	CMS Collaboration	Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS	JINST 6 (2011) 11002	CMS-JME-10-011 1107.4277
61	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity Measurement for the 2015 Data Taking Period	CMS-PAS-LUM-15-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-15-001