CMSPASHIG17013  
Search for new resonances in the diphoton final state in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 and 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
September 2017  
Abstract: The results of a search for a new resonance decaying into two photons are presented for a diphoton invariant mass in the range between 70 and 110 GeV. The analysis uses the entire dataset collected by the CMS experiment in protonproton collisions during the 2012 and 2016 LHC running periods. The data samples correspond to integrated luminosities of 19.7 fb$^{1}$ at $\sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV and 35.9 fb$^{1}$ at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV. The expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the cross section times branching ratio into two photons are presented. No significant excess with respect to the expected limits is observed. The observed upper limit for the 2012 (2016) dataset ranges from approximately 133 (161) fb at the mass hypothesis of 91.1 (89.9) GeV to 31 (26) fb at a mass of 102.8 (103.0) GeV. The statistical combination of the results from the analysis of the two datasets in the mass range between 80 and 110 GeV yields a minimum (maximum) observed upper limit on the production cross section times branching ratio normalized to the Standard Modellike expectation of approximately 0.17 (1.15) corresponding to a mass hypothesis of 103.0 (90.0) GeV.  
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
inSPIRE record ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PLB 793 (2019) 320. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. 
Figures & Tables  Summary  Additional Figures  References  CMS Publications 

Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Full parameterized signal shape integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV (left) and at $\sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV (right). The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines are the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the effective $\sigma $ ($\sigma _{\text {eff}}$) values and the corresponding full width at halfmaximum (FWHM), indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Full parameterized signal shape integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV. The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines are the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the effective $\sigma $ ($\sigma _{\text {eff}}$) values and the corresponding full width at halfmaximum (FWHM), indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Full parameterized signal shape integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV at $\sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV. The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines are the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the effective $\sigma $ ($\sigma _{\text {eff}}$) values and the corresponding full width at halfmaximum (FWHM), indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in the four event classes at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for each class for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 0 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 1 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 2 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 2d:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 3 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 8 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in the three event classes at $\sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for each class for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 0 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 1 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Background model fits using the chosen 'bestfit' parametrization (PDF) to data in class 2 at $\sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV. The deviations from monotonically decreasing behavior in the neighborhood of $m_{\gamma \gamma} = $ 90 GeV are consistent with surviving doublefake events from the $\mathrm{Z} \to {\mathrm{e^{+}} \mathrm{e^{}}} $ DrellYan process. The corresponding signal model for $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV is also shown. The error bands, shown for illustration purposes only, reflect the uncertainty on the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. The difference between the data and the bestfit PDF is shown below. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for an SMlike second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation, from the analysis of the 8 TeV (left) and 13 TeV (right) datasets. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The theoretical prediction for the crosssection times branching ratio into two photons of an SMlike Higgs boson, $\sigma _{\text {SM}}\times \text {BR}$ is shown as a blue line, with the redhatched band indicating its uncertainty [47,48]. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for an SMlike second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation, from the analysis of the 8 TeV dataset. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The theoretical prediction for the crosssection times branching ratio into two photons of an SMlike Higgs boson, $\sigma _{\text {SM}}\times \text {BR}$ is shown as a blue line, with the redhatched band indicating its uncertainty [47,48]. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for an SMlike second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation, from the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The theoretical prediction for the crosssection times branching ratio into two photons of an SMlike Higgs boson, $\sigma _{\text {SM}}\times \text {BR}$ is shown as a blue line, with the redhatched band indicating its uncertainty [47,48]. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation for the ggH plus $\text {t}\overline {\text {t}}$H (left) and VBF plus VH (right) processes, from the analysis of the 8 TeV (top) and 13 TeV (bottom) datasets. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation for the ggH plus $\text {t}\overline {\text {t}}$H processes, from the analysis of the 8 TeV dataset. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation for the VBF plus VH processes, from the analysis of the 8 TeV dataset. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5c:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation for the ggH plus $\text {t}\overline {\text {t}}$H processes, from the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5d:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson in the asymptotic CLs approximation for the VBF plus VH processes, from the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. The inner (green) bands and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL) on the production cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson relative to the expected SMlike expectation, in the asymptotic CLs approximation, from the analysis of the 8 and 13 TeV datasets. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Observed local pvalues as a function of $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} $ for the 8 and 13 TeV datasets and their combination (solid curves) plotted together with the relevant expectations for an SMlike second Higgs boson (dotted curves). 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Values of $\mu $, $\sigma $ and their uncertainties from statistical errors on the doublefake fits, and the total uncertainty in each event class used in the final statistical analysis of the 8 TeV dataset. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Values of $\mu $, $\sigma $ and their uncertainties from statistical errors on the doublefake fits, and the total uncertainty in each event class used in the final statistical analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
The expected number of signal events per event class and the corresponding percentage breakdown per production process, for the 8 TeV dataset. The values of $\sigma _{\text {eff}}$ and $\sigma _{\text {HM}}$ are also shown, as are the expected number of background events per GeV in a $\sigma _{\text {eff}}$ window centered on $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
The expected number of signal events per event class and the corresponding percentage breakdown per production process, for the 13 TeV dataset. The values of $\sigma _{\text {eff}}$ and $\sigma _{\text {HM}}$ are also shown, as are the expected number of background events per GeV in a $\sigma _{\text {eff}}$ window centered on $ {m_{\mathrm {H}}} = $ 90 GeV. 
Summary 
A search for new lowmass resonances decaying to two photons has been presented. It is based upon data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of 19.7 fb$^{1}$ and 35.9 fb$^{1}$ collected respectively at centerofmass energies of 8 TeV in 2012 and 13 TeV in 2016. The search is performed in a mass range between 70 and 110 GeV. The expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the cross section times branching ratio into two photons for a second Higgs boson as well as the expected and observed local pvalues are presented. No significant excess with respect to the expected limits is observed. For the 8 TeV dataset, the minimum(maximum) observed upper limit on the production cross section times branching ratio is approximately 31(133) fb corresponding to a mass hypothesis of 102.8(91.1) GeV. For the 13 TeV dataset, the minimum(maximum) observed upper limits are 26(161) fb corresponding to a mass hypothesis of 103.0(89.9) GeV. The statistical combination of the results from the analysis of the two datasets in the mass range between 80 and 110 GeV yields a minimum(maximum) observed upper limit on the production cross section times branching ratio normalized to the SMlike expectation of approximately 0.17 (1.15) corresponding to a mass hypothesis of 103.0(90.0) GeV. In the case of the 8 TeV dataset, one excess with approximately 2.0$\sigma$ local significance is observed for an hypothesis mass of 97.6 GeV. For the 13 TeV dataset, one excess with approximately 2.9$\sigma$ local (1.47$\sigma$ global) significance is observed for an hypothesis mass of 95.3 GeV. When combined statistically, these yield an excess with approximately 2.8$\sigma$ local (1.3$\sigma$ global) significance for the same hypothesis mass as for the 13 TeV dataset alone, 95.3 GeV. More data are required to ascertain the origin of this excess. These are the first LHC results to appear for a search for new resonances in the diphoton final state in this mass range, which include analysis of data at the centerofmass energy of 13 TeV. 
Additional Figures  
png pdf 
Additional Figure 1:
Efficiency for the seeded leg measured on data for $\mathrm{ Z\to ee }$ events using the tagandprobe method, for the 'OR' highlevel trigger (HLT) path used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset, with respect to offline probe electron $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, for ECAL barrel photons with $ {R_\mathrm {9}} > $ 0.85 (black) and 0.5 $ < {R_\mathrm {9}} < $ 0.85 (red). Variable bin widths have been used. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 2:
Efficiency for the seeded leg measured on data for $\mathrm{ Z\to ee }$ events using the tagandprobe method, for the 'AND' highlevel trigger (HLT) path used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset, with respect to offline probe electron $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, for ECAL barrel photons with $ {R_\mathrm {9}} > $ 0.85 (black) and endcap photons with $ {R_\mathrm {9}} > $ 0.9 (magenta). Variable bin widths have been used. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 3:
Efficiency for the unseeded leg measured on data for the 'OR' highlevel trigger (HLT) path used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset, with respect to offline probe electron $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, for ECAL barrel photons with $ {R_\mathrm {9}} > $ 0.85 (black) and 0.5 $ < {R_\mathrm {9}} < $ 0.85 (red). Variable bin widths have been used. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 4:
Efficiency for the unseeded leg measured on data for the 'AND' highlevel trigger (HLT) path used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset, with respect to offline probe electron $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, for ECAL barrel photons with $ {R_\mathrm {9}} > $ 0.85 (black) and endcap photons with $ {R_\mathrm {9}} > $ 0.9 (magenta). Variable bin widths have been used. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 5:
Signal efficiency$\times $acceptance for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset, as a function of mass hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 6:
Doublesided Crystal Ball function fit to the dielectron invariant mass distribution from DrellYan 'doublefake' events for class 0, used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 7:
Doublesided Crystal Ball function fit to the dielectron invariant mass distribution from DrellYan 'doublefake' events for class 1, used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 8:
Doublesided Crystal Ball function fit to the dielectron invariant mass distribution from DrellYan 'doublefake' events for class 2, used for the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 9:
The set of functions chosen to fit the background using the discrete profiling method for the event class 0 in the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. Four families of functions summed with the DCB function are considered: sums of exponentials, polynomials in the Bernstein basis, Laurent series and sums of power laws. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 10:
The set of functions chosen to fit the background using the discrete profiling method for the event class 1 in the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. Four families of functions summed with the DCB function are considered: sums of exponentials, polynomials in the Bernstein basis, Laurent series and sums of power laws. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11:
The set of functions chosen to fit the background using the discrete profiling method for the event class 2 in the analysis of the 13 TeV dataset. Four families of functions summed with the DCB function are considered: sums of exponentials, polynomials in the Bernstein basis, Laurent series and sums of power laws. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12:
Events in the three classes of the 13 TeV dataset, binned as a function of $ {m_{\gamma \gamma}} $, together with the result of a fit of the signalplusbackground model. The 1$\sigma $ and 2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands shown for the background component of the fit include the uncertainty due to the choice of fit function and the uncertainty in the fitted parameters. The distribution of the residual data after subtracting the fitted background component is shown below. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 13:
Events in the three classes of the 13 TeV dataset, binned as a function of $ {m_{\gamma \gamma}} $, where each event is weighted by the ratio S/(S+B) for its event class, together with the result of a fit of the signalplusbackground model. The 1$\sigma $ and 2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands shown for the background component of the fit include the uncertainty due to the choice of fit function and the uncertainty in the fitted parameters. The distribution of the residual weighted data after subtracting the fitted background component is shown below. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 14:
Values of the signal strength $\hat{\mu}$ measured individually for the seven event classes in the combination of the 8 and 13 TeV datasets, and the overall combined value, with $m_H$ fixed to that of the largest local pvalue excess. The horizontal bars indicate $ \pm 1 \sigma $ uncertainties in the values, and the vertical line and band indicate the value of the combined $\hat{\mu}$ in the fit to the data and its uncertainty. The $\chi ^2$ probability of the values for the seven classes being compatible with the overall bestfit signal strength is 41%. 
References  
1  S. L. Glashow  Partialsymmetries of weak interactions  NP 22 (1961) 579  
2  S.Weinberg  A model of leptons  PRL 19 (1967) 1264  
3  A. Salam  Weak and electromagnetic interactions  Elementary particle physics (1968)  
4  F. Englert and R. Brout  Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons  PRL 13 (1964) 321  
5  P.W. Higgs  Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields  PL12 (1964) 132  
6  P.W. Higgs  Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons  PRL 13 (1964) 508  
7  G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble  Global conservation laws and massless particles  PRL 13 (Nov, 1964) 585587  
8  P. W. Higgs  Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons  PR145 (May, 1966) 11561163  
9  T. W. B. Kibble  Symmetry breaking in nonabelian gauge theories  PR155 (Mar, 1967) 15541561  
10  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PLB716 (2012) 129  1207.7214 
11  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC  PLB716 (2012) 3061  CMSHIG12028 1207.7235 
12  P. Fayet  Supergauge Invariant Extension of the Higgs Mechanism and a Model for the electron and Its Neutrino  NPB90 (1975) 104124  
13  R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy  Gauge Models with Spontaneously Broken Local Supersymmetry  PLB119 (1982) 343  
14  M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki  A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion  PLB104 (1981) 199  
15  H. P. Nilles, M. Srednicki, and D. Wyler  Weak Interaction Breakdown Induced by Supergravity  PLB120 (1983) 346  
16  J. M. Frere, D. R. T. Jones, and S. Raby  Fermion Masses and Induction of the Weak Scale by Supergravity  NPB222 (1983) 11  
17  J. P. Derendinger and C. A. Savoy  Quantum Effects and SU(2) x U(1) Breaking in Supergravity Gauge Theories  NPB237 (1984) 307  
18  J. Ellis et al.  Higgs bosons in a nonminimal supersymmetric model  PRD 39 (Feb, 1989) 844869  
19  M. Drees  Supersymmetric Models with Extended Higgs Sector  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A4 (1989) 3635  
20  U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy  Particle spectrum in supersymmetric models with a gauge singlet  PLB315 (1993) 331337  hepph/9307322 
21  U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy  Higgs phenomenology of the supersymmetric model with a gauge singlet  Z. Phys. C67 (1995) 665670  hepph/9502206 
22  U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy  Phenomenology of supersymmetric models with a singlet  NPB492 (1997) 2150  hepph/9611251 
23  T. Elliott, S. F. King, and P. L. White  Unification constraints in the nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  PLB351 (1995) 213219  hepph/9406303 
24  S. F. King and P. L. White  Resolving the constrained minimal and nexttominimal supersymmetric standard models  PRD52 (1995) 41834216  hepph/9505326 
25  F. Franke and H. Fraas  Neutralinos and Higgs bosons in the nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A12 (1997) 479534  hepph/9512366 
26  M. Maniatis  The NexttoMinimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model reviewed  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25 (2010) 35053602  0906.0777 
27  U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira  The NexttoMinimal Supersymmetric Standard Model  PR 496 (2010) 177  0910.1785 
28  A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich  LHC constraints on twoHiggs doublet models  JHEP 07 (2013) 053  1302.4022 
29  B. Coleppa, F. Kling, and S. Su  Constraining Type II 2HDM in Light of LHC Higgs Searches  JHEP 01 (2014) 161  1305.0002 
30  S. Chang et al.  Two Higgs doublet models for the LHC Higgs boson data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 09 (2014) 101  1310.3374 
31  CMS Collaboration  Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties  EPJC74 (2014), no. 10  CMSHIG13001 1407.0558 
32  CMS Collaboration  Higgs to diphoton with 13 TeV with full 2016 dataset  CMSPASHIG16040, CERN, Geneva  CMSPASHIG16040 
33  CMS Collaboration  Search for new resonances in the diphoton final state in the mass range between 80 and 110 GeV in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  CMSPASHIG14037  CMSPASHIG14037 
34  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for Scalar Diphoton Resonances in the Mass Range $ 65600 $ GeV with the ATLAS Detector in $ pp $ Collision Data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV  PRL 113 (2014), no. 17, 171801  1407.6583 
35  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  CMS00001 
36  CMS Collaboration  Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV  JINST 10 (2015) P08010  CMSEGM14001 1502.02702 
37  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
38  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt {s} = $ 7 TeV with the CMS experiment  JHEP 2011 (2011) 1  
39  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG  JHEP 04 (2009) 002  0812.0578 
40  P. Nason and C. Oleari  NLO Higgs boson production via vectorboson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG  JHEP 02 (2010) 037  0911.5299 
41  T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands  PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual  JHEP 05 (2006) 026  hepph/0603175 
42  J. Alwall et al.  The automated computation of treelevel and nexttoleading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations  JHEP 07 (2014) 079  1405.0301 
43  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
44  T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands  A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1  CPC 178 (2008) 852867  0710.3820 
45  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the Underlying Event Activity at the LHC with $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV and Comparison with $ \sqrt{s} = $ 0.9 TeV  JHEP 09 (2011) 109  CMSQCD10010 1107.0330 
46  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 

47  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 3. Higgs Properties  1307.1347  
48  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration  Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector  1610.07922  
49  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT4a simulation toolkit  NIMA 506 (2003) 250  
50  T. Gleisberg et al.  Event generation with SHERPA 1.1  JHEP 02 (2009) 007  0811.4622 
51  J. Alwall et al.  MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond  JHEP 06 (2011) 128  1106.0522 
52  P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies  Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method  JINST 10 (2015), no. 04, P04015  1408.6865 
53  CMS Collaboration  CMS Luminosity Based on Pixel Cluster Counting  Summer 2013 Update  CMSPASLUM13001  CMSPASLUM13001 
54  CMS Collaboration  CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period  CMSPASLUM17001  CMSPASLUM17001 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 