CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-HIG-20-011
Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Abstract: This note presents a comprehensive overview and statistical combination of searches for the nonresonant production of Higgs boson pairs (HH) using data from proton-proton collisions collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC from 2016 to 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the rate of the HH production. The observed (expected) upper limit on the inclusive production cross section relative to the standard model expectation is found to be 3.5 (2.5). Assuming all other Higgs boson couplings are equal to their values in the standard model, we exclude HH production at 95% confidence level for values of the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling modifier $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ outside the range between $-$1.39 and 7.02. Similarly, for the coupling modifier $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ affecting the interaction between two vector bosons and two Higgs bosons, we exclude HH production for values outside the range between 0.62 and 1.42. This work also studies HH production in new physics scenarios, using the Higgs effective field theory parametrisation. An extrapolation of the results to the integrated luminosity expected after the high-luminosity upgrade of the LHC is also presented.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with the top quark and the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling are shown as $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with the top quark and the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling are shown as $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with the top quark and the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling are shown as $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via vector boson fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via vector boson fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via vector boson fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via vector boson fusion in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via associated production with a vector boson in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ respectively.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via associated production with a vector boson in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ respectively.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via associated production with a vector boson in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ respectively.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via associated production with a vector boson in the standard model. The modifiers of the Higgs boson coupling with a vector boson, the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, and the coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons are shown as $ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ respectively.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion with anomalous Higgs boson couplings $ c_{2} $, $ c_{\mathrm{g}} $, and $ c_{2\mathrm{g}} $. The Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling modifier is shown as $ \kappa_{\lambda} $.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion with anomalous Higgs boson couplings $ c_{2} $, $ c_{\mathrm{g}} $, and $ c_{2\mathrm{g}} $. The Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling modifier is shown as $ \kappa_{\lambda} $.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion with anomalous Higgs boson couplings $ c_{2} $, $ c_{\mathrm{g}} $, and $ c_{2\mathrm{g}} $. The Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling modifier is shown as $ \kappa_{\lambda} $.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams of nonresonant Higgs boson pair production via gluon-gluon fusion with anomalous Higgs boson couplings $ c_{2} $, $ c_{\mathrm{g}} $, and $ c_{2\mathrm{g}} $. The Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling modifier is shown as $ \kappa_{\lambda} $.

png pdf
Figure 5:
The 95% CL upper limits on the inclusive signal strength $ r = \sigma_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}} /\sigma_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}} ^\text{SM} $ for each channel and their combination. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the 68 and 95% CL intervals, respectively, under the background-only hypothesis. The $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ and $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ contributions have been combined in order to simplify the presentation of results.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The 95% CL upper limits on the VBF signal strength $ r_{{\text{VBF}} {\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}}} = \sigma_{{\text{VBF}} \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}} /\sigma_{{\text{VBF}} \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}} ^\text{SM} $ for each channel and their combination. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the 68 and 95% CL intervals, respectively, under the background-only hypothesis. Not all of the eight channels are used to extract the combined VBF limit. The contributing channels are indicated in the figure. The $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ and $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ contributions have been combined in order to simplify the presentation of results.

png pdf
Figure 7:
The 95% CL upper limits on the inclusive HH cross section as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right), respectively. All other couplings are set to the values predicted by the SM. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF and VBF signal cross sections are not considered because here we directly constrain the measured cross section. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the 68 and 95% CL intervals, respectively, under the background-only hypothesis. The star shows the limit at the SM value for $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
The 95% CL upper limits on the inclusive HH cross section as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right), respectively. All other couplings are set to the values predicted by the SM. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF and VBF signal cross sections are not considered because here we directly constrain the measured cross section. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the 68 and 95% CL intervals, respectively, under the background-only hypothesis. The star shows the limit at the SM value for $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
The 95% CL upper limits on the inclusive HH cross section as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right), respectively. All other couplings are set to the values predicted by the SM. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF and VBF signal cross sections are not considered because here we directly constrain the measured cross section. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the 68 and 95% CL intervals, respectively, under the background-only hypothesis. The star shows the limit at the SM value for $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 8:
The profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ as a function of coupling modifiers $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right) for the combination of all channels.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
The profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ as a function of coupling modifiers $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right) for the combination of all channels.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
The profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ as a function of coupling modifiers $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right) for the combination of all channels.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ scans as a function of pairs of coupling modifiers ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top left), ($ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top right), and ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $) (bottom) for the combination of all channels when all the other parameters are fixed to their SM value.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ scans as a function of pairs of coupling modifiers ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top left), ($ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top right), and ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $) (bottom) for the combination of all channels when all the other parameters are fixed to their SM value.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ scans as a function of pairs of coupling modifiers ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top left), ($ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top right), and ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $) (bottom) for the combination of all channels when all the other parameters are fixed to their SM value.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ scans as a function of pairs of coupling modifiers ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top left), ($ \kappa_{V} $, $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $) (top right), and ( $ \kappa_{\lambda} $, $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $) (bottom) for the combination of all channels when all the other parameters are fixed to their SM value.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Upper limits on the HH production cross section at 95% CL for the two sets of HEFT benchmarks. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF signal cross section are not considered because we directly constrain the measured cross section.

png pdf
Figure 11:
On the left, upper limits on the HH cross section as a function of the $ c_{2} $ coupling modifier. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF signal cross section are not considered because we directly constrain the measured cross section. On the right, the profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ as a function of the $ c_{2} $ coupling modifier.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
On the left, upper limits on the HH cross section as a function of the $ c_{2} $ coupling modifier. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF signal cross section are not considered because we directly constrain the measured cross section. On the right, the profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ as a function of the $ c_{2} $ coupling modifier.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
On the left, upper limits on the HH cross section as a function of the $ c_{2} $ coupling modifier. The theoretical uncertainties in the HH ggF signal cross section are not considered because we directly constrain the measured cross section. On the right, the profile likelihood ratio test statistic $ -2\Delta\log(L) $ as a function of the $ c_{2} $ coupling modifier.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Expected upper limits on the HH signal strength from the combination of all the considered channels at different integrated luminosities (left), and under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 12-a:
Expected upper limits on the HH signal strength from the combination of all the considered channels at different integrated luminosities (left), and under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 12-b:
Expected upper limits on the HH signal strength from the combination of all the considered channels at different integrated luminosities (left), and under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 13:
Expected $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ likelihood scan from the combination of all the considered channels projected at different integrated luminosities (left), and under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
Expected $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ likelihood scan from the combination of all the considered channels projected at different integrated luminosities (left), and under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
Expected $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ likelihood scan from the combination of all the considered channels projected at different integrated luminosities (left), and under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 14:
Expected signal significance as a function of integrated luminosity for the nominal scenario of systematic uncertainties S2 and for the scenario with statistical uncertainties only (left). Expected signal significance as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 14-a:
Expected signal significance as a function of integrated luminosity for the nominal scenario of systematic uncertainties S2 and for the scenario with statistical uncertainties only (left). Expected signal significance as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 14-b:
Expected signal significance as a function of integrated luminosity for the nominal scenario of systematic uncertainties S2 and for the scenario with statistical uncertainties only (left). Expected signal significance as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ under different assumptions on the systematic uncertainties for an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ (right).
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Values of the effective Lagrangian couplings for the Higgs Effective field theory benchmarks proposed in Ref. [33].

png pdf
Table 2:
Values of the effective Lagrangian couplings for the Higgs effective field theory benchmarks proposed in Ref. [34].

png pdf
Table 3:
Summary of results for the HH analyses included in this combination. The second column is the observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the inclusive signal strength $ r $. The third (fourth) column is the allowed 68% CL interval for the coupling modifier $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ ($ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $). The last column indicates whether the analysis is included in the results using the HEFT parametrisation.

png pdf
Table 4:
Treatment of most important common systematic uncertainties in the S2 scenario.

png pdf
Table 5:
Expected significance for the HH signal projected to 2000 or 3000 fb$ ^{-1} $ under different assumptions of systematic uncertainties.
Summary
A combined search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair (HH) production is performed using the proton-proton collision data set produced by the LHC at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV, and collected by the CMS detector from 2016 to 2018 (Run 2), which corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Searches for HH production via gluon-gluon (ggF) and vector boson fusion (VBF) production, are carried out in the $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\gamma\gamma $, $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\tau\tau $, $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $, $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $, and multilepton channels. Additionally, the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson pair production is also searched for in the $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ with ZZ decaying to four leptons, $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}\gamma\gamma $, and $ \tau\tau\gamma\gamma $ final states, which have clean signatures but relatively small branching fractions. The associated production mechanism with a vector boson is searched for in the $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ final state with the largest branching fraction. The analyses of these channels are combined to probe the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling, the quartic coupling between two vector bosons and two Higgs bosons (VVHH) and to search for beyond the standard model physics scenarios in the Higgs effective field theory approach.

The observed and expected upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the cross section of gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson pair production are found to be 3.5 and 2.5 times the standard model expectations. For the vector boson fusion production, the observed and expected upper limit at 95% CL are 79 and 91 times the standard model expectations. One-dimensional scans of coupling modifiers are performed. When all other parameters are assumed to be as expected from the SM, we (expect to) exclude HH production at 95% CL when the Higgs boson trilinear self-coupling modifier $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ is outside the range from $- $1.39 to 7.02 ($-$1.02 to 7.19). Equivalently, HH production is excluded when the VVHH coupling modifier $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ is outside the range from 0.62 to 1.42 (0.69 to 1.35 expected).

Two-dimensional measurements are also performed, including simultaneous measurements of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ and the modifier of the Higgs boson coupling to the top quark ($ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $), and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ and the modifier of the Higgs boson coupling to vector bosons ($ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $). The results are in agreement with the standard model predictions.

Under an effective field theory framework, the cross section of the nonresonant ggF HH pair production is parameterised as a function of anomalous couplings of the Higgs boson, involving the contact interactions between two Higgs and two top quarks, between two gluons and two Higgs bosons, and between two gluons and a Higgs boson. We perform searches for benchmark signals under different anomalous coupling scenarios and set upper limits on their cross sections at 95% CL. We (expect to) exclude HH production at 95% CL when the coupling of the contact interaction between two Higgs and two top quarks is outside the range between $-$0.28 to 0.59 ($-$0.17 to 0.47).

These results present the most stringent limits and constraints obtained from the searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production using the LHC Run 2 data set collected by the CMS detector. Extrapolating our current results to the luminosity of HL-LHC it can be expected to see first evidence for Higgs boson pair production with $ \approx $2000 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data.
References
1 CMS Collaboration Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC PLB 716 (2012) 30 CMS-HIG-12-028
1207.7235
2 CMS Collaboration Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 06 (2013) 081 CMS-HIG-12-036
1303.4571
3 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 1207.7214
4 CMS Collaboration Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton--proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV EPJC 79 (2019) 421 CMS-HIG-17-031
1809.10733
5 ATLAS Collaboration Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb$ ^{-1} $ of proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment PRD 101 (2020) 012002 1909.02845
6 A. Papaefstathiou and G. White The electro-weak phase transition at colliders: confronting theoretical uncertainties and complementary channels JHEP 05 (2021) 099 2010.00597
7 A. Mazumdar and G. White Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2019) 076901 1811.01948
8 V. Brigljevic et al. $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H} $ Whitepaper 2407.03015
9 A. Dainese et al. Report from Working Group 2: Higgs physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7 (2019) 221 1902.00134
10 T. Plehn and M. Rauch The quartic higgs coupling at hadron colliders PRD 72 (2005) 053008 hep-ph/0507321
11 S. Borowka et al. Higgs boson pair production in gluon fusion at next-to-leading order with full top-quark mass dependence PRL 117 (2016) 012001 1604.06447
12 J. Baglio et al. Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme EPJC 79 (2019) 459 1811.05692
13 F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg Vector-boson fusion Higgs pair production at N$ ^3 $LO PRD 98 (2018) 114016 1811.07906
14 L. Alasfar et al. Effective field theory descriptions of Higgs boson pair production SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 2, 2024 2304.01968
15 ATLAS Collaboration Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRL 133 (2024) 101801 2406.09971
16 CMS Collaboration A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery Nature 607 (2022) 60 CMS-HIG-22-001
2207.00043
17 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
18 CMS Collaboration Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 JINST 19 (2024) P05064
19 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
20 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
21 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2 Submitted to JINST, 2024 CMS-TRG-19-001
2410.17038
22 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
23 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P06015 CMS-MUO-16-001
1804.04528
24 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
25 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
26 CMS Collaboration Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015
CDS
27 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector JINST 14 (2019) P07004 CMS-JME-17-001
1903.06078
28 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
29 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
30 G. Heinrich et al. Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects JHEP 06 (2019) 066 1903.08137
31 D. de Florian et al. Anomalous couplings in Higgs-boson pair production at approximate NNLO QCD JHEP 09 (2021) 161 2106.14050
32 A. Carvalho et al. On the reinterpretation of non-resonant searches for Higgs boson pairs JHEP 02 (2021) 049 1710.08261
33 A. Carvalho et al. Higgs pair production: Choosing benchmarks with cluster analysis JHEP 04 (2016) 126 1507.02245
34 M. Capozi and G. Heinrich Exploring anomalous couplings in Higgs boson pair production through shape analysis JHEP 03 (2020) 091 1908.08923
35 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
36 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
37 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
38 S. Amoroso et al. Les Houches 2019: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report in 11th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: PhysTeV Les Houches, 2020 2003.01700
39 G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and L. Scyboz SMEFT predictions for $ gg \to hh $ at full NLO QCD and truncation uncertainties JHEP 08 (2022) 079 2204.13045
40 E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, and R. Gröber Higgs boson pair production at NLO in the POWHEG approach and the top quark mass uncertainties EPJC 83 (2023) 1054 2309.10525
41 F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg Fully differential Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order PRD 99 (2019) 074028 1811.07918
42 J. Baglio et al. The measurement of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC: theoretical status JHEP 04 (2013) 151 1212.5581
43 T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852 0710.3820
44 CMS Collaboration Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2021) 257 CMS-HIG-19-018
2011.12373
45 CMS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV PRD 96 (2017) 072004 CMS-HIG-15-013
1707.00350
46 CMS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PRL 129 (2022) 081802 CMS-HIG-20-005
2202.09617
47 CMS Collaboration Search for nonresonant pair production of highly energetic Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quarks PRL 131 (2023) 041803 2205.06667
48 CMS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 10 (2024) 061 CMS-HIG-22-006
2404.08462
49 CMS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ \textrm{b}\overline{\textrm{b}}{\textrm{W}}^{+}{\textrm{W}}^{-} $ decay mode in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2024) 293 CMS-HIG-21-005
2403.09430
50 CMS Collaboration Search for highly energetic double Higgs boson production in the two bottom quark and two vector boson all-hadronic final state CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024
CMS-PAS-HIG-23-012
CMS-PAS-HIG-23-012
51 CMS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pairs decaying to $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^\ast\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^\ast $, $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^\ast\tau\tau $, and $ \tau\tau\tau\tau $ in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2023) 095 CMS-HIG-21-002
2206.10268
52 CMS Collaboration Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}\gamma\gamma $ channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2022
CMS-PAS-HIG-21-014
CMS-PAS-HIG-21-014
53 CMS Collaboration Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the four leptons plus twob jets final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 06 (2023) 130 CMS-HIG-20-004
2206.10657
54 CMS Collaboration Search for the nonresonant and resonant production of a Higgs boson in association with an additional scalar boson in the $ \gamma\gamma\tau\tau $ final state CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024
CMS-PAS-HIG-22-012
CMS-PAS-HIG-22-012
55 A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler Soft drop JHEP 05 (2014) 146 1402.2657
56 I. Henrion et al. Neural message passing for jet physics in Deep Learning for Physical Sciences Workshop at 31st Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems. Long Beach, CA, 2017
57 H. Qu and L. Gouskos Jet tagging via particle clouds PRD 101 (2020) 056019 1902.08570
58 E. A. Moreno et al. JEDI-net: a jet identification algorithm based on interaction networks EPJC 80 (2020) 58 1908.05318
59 E. A. Moreno et al. Interaction networks for the identification of boosted $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decays PRD 102 (2020) 012010 1909.12285
60 CMS Collaboration Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2023
CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001
CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001
61 CMS Collaboration Mass regression of highly-boosted jets using graph neural networks CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2021-017, 2021
CDS
62 CMS Collaboration Search for a massive resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PLB 781 (2018) 244 1710.04960
63 CMS Collaboration Search for production of Higgs boson pairs in the four b quark final state using large-area jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 01 (2019) 040 1808.01473
64 CMS Collaboration Inclusive search for highly boosted Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 12 (2020) 85 CMS-HIG-19-003
2006.13251
65 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques JINST 15 (2020) P06005 CMS-JME-18-002
2004.08262
66 CMS Collaboration Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network JINST 17 (2022) P07023 CMS-TAU-20-001
2201.08458
67 L. Bianchini et al. Reconstruction of the higgs mass in events with higgs bosons decaying into a pair of leptons using matrix element techniques Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. 862 (2017) 54 1603.05910
68 E. Bols et al. Jet flavour classification using DeepJet JINST 15 (2020) P12012 2008.10519
69 CMS Collaboration Evidence for associated production of a Higgs boson with a top quark pair in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying $ \tau $ leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 08 (2018) 066 CMS-HIG-17-018
1803.05485
70 H. Qu, C. Li, and S. Qian Particle transformer for jet tagging in Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, K. Chaudhuri et al., eds., volume 162, 2022
link
2202.03772
71 CMS Collaboration Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2023
CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001
CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001
72 CMS Collaboration Lund plane reweighting for jet substructure correction CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2023-046, 2023
CDS
73 F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The Lund jet plane JHEP 12 (2018) 064 1807.04758
74 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 81 (2021) 378 CMS-HIG-19-008
2011.03652
75 S. Manzoni et al. Taming a leading theoretical uncertainty in $ {\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}} $ measurements via accurate simulations for $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{H} $ production JHEP 09 (2023) 179 2307.09992
76 J. Baglio et al. $ gg\to HH $: Combined uncertainties PRD 103 (2021) 056002 2008.11626
77 L.-S. Ling et al. NNLO QCD corrections to Higgs pair production via vector boson fusion at hadron colliders PRD 89 (2014) 073001 1401.7754
78 D. de Florian, I. Fabre, and J. Mazzitelli Higgs boson pair production at NNLO in QCD including dimension 6 operators JHEP 10 (2017) 215 1704.05700
79 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS EPJC 81 (2021) 800 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
80 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
81 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
82 R. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219
83 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011
84 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
85 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
86 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
87 CMS Collaboration The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 CMS-CAT-23-001
2404.06614
88 W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby The RooFit toolkit for data modeling physics/0306116
89 L. Moneta et al. The RooStats Project PoS ACAT 057, 2010 1009.1003
90 I. Zurbano Fernandez et al. High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 10 (2020)
91 CMS Collaboration The Phase-2 upgrade of the CMS level-1 trigger CMS Technical Design Report CERN-LHCC-2020-004, CMS-TDR-021, 2020
CDS
92 CMS Collaboration The Phase-2 upgrade of the CMS data acquisition and high level trigger CMS Technical Design Report CERN-LHCC-2021-007, CMS-TDR-022, 2021
CDS
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN