Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-HIG-23-014 | ||
| Measurements of inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections at 13.6 TeV in the $ \mathrm{H} \rightarrow \gamma\gamma $ decay channel | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 19 July 2024 | ||
| Abstract: Inclusive and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions are measured at a centre-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV. The dataset was collected with the CMS detector at the LHC in 2022 and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 34.7 fb$ ^{-1} $. Events in the diphoton decay channel of the Higgs boson are selected and the inclusive cross section in a fiducial volume is measured as $ \sigma_{\mathrm{fid}} = $ 78 $ \pm $ 11 (stat) $^{+6}_{-5}$ (syst) fb in agreement with the standard model prediction of 67.8 $ \pm $ 3.8 fb. Differential cross sections are measured for the Higgs boson transverse momentum, rapidity and for the number of jets in the event. The differential cross sections also agree with the standard model predictions within the uncertainties. | ||
| Links: CDS record (PDF) ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures & Tables | Summary | Additional Figures | References | CMS Publications |
|---|
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Normalised distributions of the photon identification BDT scores for prompt (blue) and non-prompt (orange) photons in the EB (left) and EE (right) from \gjet simulated events. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Normalised distributions of the photon identification BDT scores for prompt (blue) and non-prompt (orange) photons in the EB (left) and EE (right) from \gjet simulated events. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Normalised distributions of the photon identification BDT scores for prompt (blue) and non-prompt (orange) photons in the EB (left) and EE (right) from \gjet simulated events. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Data-simulation comparison for $ \sigma_{E} $ (top left), $ H/E $ (top right), the photon identification BDT score in EB (bottom left) and EE (bottom right) for electrons reconstructed as photons from $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ decays. The uncorrected distributions are shown in blue and the distributions with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. For the distributions of the photon identification BDT score, the shaded region indicates the photons not used in the cross section measurements as a requirement of $ > $ 0.25 is applied. For $ \sigma_{E} $, the last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Data-simulation comparison for $ \sigma_{E} $ (top left), $ H/E $ (top right), the photon identification BDT score in EB (bottom left) and EE (bottom right) for electrons reconstructed as photons from $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ decays. The uncorrected distributions are shown in blue and the distributions with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. For the distributions of the photon identification BDT score, the shaded region indicates the photons not used in the cross section measurements as a requirement of $ > $ 0.25 is applied. For $ \sigma_{E} $, the last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Data-simulation comparison for $ \sigma_{E} $ (top left), $ H/E $ (top right), the photon identification BDT score in EB (bottom left) and EE (bottom right) for electrons reconstructed as photons from $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ decays. The uncorrected distributions are shown in blue and the distributions with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. For the distributions of the photon identification BDT score, the shaded region indicates the photons not used in the cross section measurements as a requirement of $ > $ 0.25 is applied. For $ \sigma_{E} $, the last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-c:
Data-simulation comparison for $ \sigma_{E} $ (top left), $ H/E $ (top right), the photon identification BDT score in EB (bottom left) and EE (bottom right) for electrons reconstructed as photons from $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ decays. The uncorrected distributions are shown in blue and the distributions with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. For the distributions of the photon identification BDT score, the shaded region indicates the photons not used in the cross section measurements as a requirement of $ > $ 0.25 is applied. For $ \sigma_{E} $, the last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-d:
Data-simulation comparison for $ \sigma_{E} $ (top left), $ H/E $ (top right), the photon identification BDT score in EB (bottom left) and EE (bottom right) for electrons reconstructed as photons from $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ decays. The uncorrected distributions are shown in blue and the distributions with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. For the distributions of the photon identification BDT score, the shaded region indicates the photons not used in the cross section measurements as a requirement of $ > $ 0.25 is applied. For $ \sigma_{E} $, the last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Data-simulation comparison of the per-event decorrelated mass resolution estimator $ \sigma_m/m $ using $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ events. Both electrons are reconstructed as photons with either both in the EB (left) or at least one in the EE (right). The uncertainty bands in the upper panel include the systematic uncertainty based on the residual mismodeling of $ \sigma_E/E $ (5%) and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data as well. The points and bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. The last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Data-simulation comparison of the per-event decorrelated mass resolution estimator $ \sigma_m/m $ using $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ events. Both electrons are reconstructed as photons with either both in the EB (left) or at least one in the EE (right). The uncertainty bands in the upper panel include the systematic uncertainty based on the residual mismodeling of $ \sigma_E/E $ (5%) and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data as well. The points and bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. The last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Data-simulation comparison of the per-event decorrelated mass resolution estimator $ \sigma_m/m $ using $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ events. Both electrons are reconstructed as photons with either both in the EB (left) or at least one in the EE (right). The uncertainty bands in the upper panel include the systematic uncertainty based on the residual mismodeling of $ \sigma_E/E $ (5%) and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data as well. The points and bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. The last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-c:
Data-simulation comparison of the per-event decorrelated mass resolution estimator $ \sigma_m/m $ using $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ events. Both electrons are reconstructed as photons with either both in the EB (left) or at least one in the EE (right). The uncertainty bands in the upper panel include the systematic uncertainty based on the residual mismodeling of $ \sigma_E/E $ (5%) and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data as well. The points and bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. The last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-d:
Data-simulation comparison of the per-event decorrelated mass resolution estimator $ \sigma_m/m $ using $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ events. Both electrons are reconstructed as photons with either both in the EB (left) or at least one in the EE (right). The uncertainty bands in the upper panel include the systematic uncertainty based on the residual mismodeling of $ \sigma_E/E $ (5%) and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data as well. The points and bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. The last bin contains the overflow. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Combined parametrised signal shapes per category and for the weighted sum of all categories. The invariant mass resolution for each combined signal model is indicated by the effective width. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Combined parametrised signal shapes per category and for the weighted sum of all categories. The invariant mass resolution for each combined signal model is indicated by the effective width. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Combined parametrised signal shapes per category and for the weighted sum of all categories. The invariant mass resolution for each combined signal model is indicated by the effective width. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
Combined parametrised signal shapes per category and for the weighted sum of all categories. The invariant mass resolution for each combined signal model is indicated by the effective width. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
Combined parametrised signal shapes per category and for the weighted sum of all categories. The invariant mass resolution for each combined signal model is indicated by the effective width. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Likelihood scans for the measurement of the inclusive fiducial cross section. The black line is obtained when considering both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The blue line corresponds to considering only the statistical uncertainty, including the discrete profiling method for the background modelling uncertainty. The theoretical prediction from MadGraph-5_aMC@NLO, including the NNLOPS reweighting for the ggF component, is shown in red. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Diphoton invariant mass distribution in the inclusive fiducial measurement, weighted by S/(S+B) for the different mass resolution categories for illustration purposes. The $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $ histogram is shown together with the signal+background fit (red line) and the background-only component (dashed line). In the lower panel, the signal component is shown, estimated by subtracting the background component from the signal+background fit. The green (yellow) bands indicate the $ \pm$1$\sigma $ ($ \pm$2$\sigma $) uncertainties in the background component. They are derived from pseudoexperiments using the best-fit background function from the signal+background fit. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}} (\mathrm{H}) $ (left) and its correlation matrix (right). The coloured lines denote the predictions from different event generation setups, explained in the legend and in the text. The dashed boxes show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the ggH and xH components. The given $ p $-value is calculated for the nominal SM prediction. The bottom panel shows the ratio to the nominal SM prediction. For the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} (\mathrm{H}) $ distribution, the last bin extends to infinity and the normalisation of the bin is indicated in the plot. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}} (\mathrm{H}) $ (left) and its correlation matrix (right). The coloured lines denote the predictions from different event generation setups, explained in the legend and in the text. The dashed boxes show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the ggH and xH components. The given $ p $-value is calculated for the nominal SM prediction. The bottom panel shows the ratio to the nominal SM prediction. For the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} (\mathrm{H}) $ distribution, the last bin extends to infinity and the normalisation of the bin is indicated in the plot. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ p_{\mathrm{T}} (\mathrm{H}) $ (left) and its correlation matrix (right). The coloured lines denote the predictions from different event generation setups, explained in the legend and in the text. The dashed boxes show the uncertainties in theoretical predictions on both the ggH and xH components. The given $ p $-value is calculated for the nominal SM prediction. The bottom panel shows the ratio to the nominal SM prediction. For the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} (\mathrm{H}) $ distribution, the last bin extends to infinity and the normalisation of the bin is indicated in the plot. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ y (\mathrm{H}) $ (left) and the respective correlation matrix (right). See caption of Fig. 7 and the text for more information. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ y (\mathrm{H}) $ (left) and the respective correlation matrix (right). See caption of Fig. 7 and the text for more information. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $ y (\mathrm{H}) $ (left) and the respective correlation matrix (right). See caption of Fig. 7 and the text for more information. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $n_{\text{jets}}$ (left) and the respective correlation matrix (right). See caption of Fig. 7 and the text for more information. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $n_{\text{jets}}$ (left) and the respective correlation matrix (right). See caption of Fig. 7 and the text for more information. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
Differential fiducial cross sections for $n_{\text{jets}}$ (left) and the respective correlation matrix (right). See caption of Fig. 7 and the text for more information. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Bin boundaries for the differential cross sections. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Magnitude of the systematic uncertainties in the inclusive fiducial cross section measurement. The magnitude for the uncertainty from the photon energy scale and resolution is extracted from a fit with the corresponding group of nuisance parameters frozen to their best-fit values with the other nuisance parameters at their best-fit values and performing a subtraction in quadrature. The magnitudes of the other sources of systematic uncertainty are obtained by varying the corresponding nuisance parameter by one standard deviation, keeping the other nuisance parameters at their best-fit values. |
| Summary |
| The fiducial inclusive cross section for Higgs boson production was measured at a centre-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV using the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ decay channel. The data were taken with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at the LHC and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 34.7 fb$ ^{-1} $. The imperfect modeling of reconstructed photon variables in the simulation is corrected using normalizing flows based on $ \mathrm{Z \to e^{+}e^{-} } $ simulation and data. The fiducial phase space is defined at particle level and includes a requirement on the geometric mean of the transverse momenta of the two photons, improving the perturbative convergence of the theoretical predictions. The inclusive fiducial cross section is measured as $ \sigma_{\mathrm{fid}} = 78 $ \pm $ 11 (stat) $^{+6}_{-5}$ (syst) fb and it is in agreement with the SM expectation of 67.8 $ \pm $ 3.8 fb. Differential cross sections were measured as a function of the Higgs boson transverse momentum and rapidity and as a function of the number of jets in the event. The measured differential cross sections agree with the SM predictions within the uncertainties. |
| Additional Figures | |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 1:
Comparison between data (black points) and simulation (blue) for the invariant mass distribution of electron pairs from Drell-Yan production reconstructed as photons. Both reconstructed photons are in the barrel region $ \lvert \eta \rvert < $ 1.4442 of the electromagnetic calorimeter. The transverse momentum of the leading (subleading) photon is required to be larger than 35 (25) GeV and loose identification criteria are applied. Scale calibrations and resolution corrections are applied to the photons in data and simulation, respectively. The error bands in the ratio panel include the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation (blue) and the uncertainty in the energy scale and resolution of the photons (black). |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 2:
Comparison between data (black points) and simulation (blue) for the invariant mass distribution of electron pairs from Drell-Yan production reconstructed as photons. At least one of the two reconstructed photons is in the endcap region $ \lvert \eta \rvert > $ 1.566 of the electromagnetic calorimeter. The transverse momentum of the leading (subleading) photon is required to be larger than 35 (25) GeV and loose identification criteria are applied. Scale calibrations and resolution corrections are applied to photons in data and simulation, respectively. The error bands in the ratio panel include the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation (blue) and the uncertainty in the energy scale and resolution of the photons (black). |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 3:
Data-simulation comparison for $ \sigma_{E} $ for photons from $ Z \to \mu \mu \gamma $ decays. The uncorrected distribution is shown in blue and the distribution with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 4:
Data-simulation comparison for $ H/E $ for photons from $ Z \to \mu \mu \gamma $ decays. The uncorrected distribution is shown in blue and the distribution with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 5:
Data-simulation comparison for the photon identification BDT score in EB for photons from $ Z \to \mu \mu \gamma $ decays. The uncorrected distribution is shown in blue and the distribution with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 6:
Data-simulation comparison for the photon identification BDT score in EE for photons from $ Z \to \mu \mu \gamma $ decays. The uncorrected distribution is shown in blue and the distribution with the corrections from the normalizing flow are shown in green. The error bars in the ratio panel include the statistical uncertainty from the data and the uncertainty from the limited number of events in simulation, summed in quadrature. The bars in the ratio panel are offset for visibility only. |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 7:
Values of the Higgs boson production cross section $ \sigma(\rm pp\rightarrow \mathrm{H} + X) $ measured in the $ \mathrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma $ and $ \mathrm{H}\rightarrow \mathrm{Z} \mathrm{Z} $ final states as a function of the pp centre-of-mass energy. The fiducial cross sections measured in this analysis and other CMS publications [8,10,14,12] are extrapolated to the entire phase space without considering extrapolation uncertainties. The point at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV for the $ \mathrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma $ channel is obtained from the signal strength modifier measured in Ref. [48], which is scaled to the theoretical cross section removing theoretical uncertainties. The theoretical predictions with the corresponding uncertainties are taken from Ref. [6]. |
png pdf |
Additional Figure 8:
Values of the fiducial inclusive Higgs boson production cross section measured in the $ \mathrm{H}\rightarrow\gamma\gamma $ final state. More information on the fiducial selections and the theoretical predictions are given in the indicated references. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | ATLAS Collaboration | Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC | PLB 716 (2012) 1 | 1207.7214 |
| 2 | CMS Collaboration | Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC | PLB 716 (2012) 30 | CMS-HIG-12-028 1207.7235 |
| 3 | 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 |
| 4 | ATLAS Collaboration | A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery | Nature 607 (2022) 7917, 52 | 2207.00092 |
| 5 | CMS Collaboration | A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery. | Nature 607 (2022) 7917, 60 | CMS-HIG-22-001 2207.00043 |
| 6 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration | Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector | link | 1610.07922 |
| 7 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with ATLAS | JHEP 09 (2014) 112 | 1407.4222 |
| 8 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV | EPJC 76 (2016) 13 | CMS-HIG-14-016 1508.07819 |
| 9 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross-sections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 08 (2022) 027 | 2202.00487 |
| 10 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2023) 091 | CMS-HIG-19-016 2208.12279 |
| 11 | ATLAS Collaboration | Fiducial and differential cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the four-lepton decay channel in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector | PLB 738 (2014) 234 | 1408.3226 |
| 12 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential and integrated fiducial cross sections for Higgs boson production in the four-lepton decay channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV | JHEP 04 (2016) 005 | CMS-HIG-14-028 1512.08377 |
| 13 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections in the 4$ \ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | EPJC 80 (2020) 942 | 2004.03969 |
| 14 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of inclusive and differential cross sections for the Higgs boson production and decay to four-leptons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 08 (2023) 040 | CMS-HIG-21-009 2305.07532 |
| 15 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of fiducial differential cross sections of gluon-fusion production of Higgs bosons decaying to $ WW^{*}\rightarrow e\nu\mu\nu $ with the ATLAS detector at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV | JHEP 08 (2016) 104 | 1604.02997 |
| 16 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the transverse momentum spectrum of the Higgs boson produced in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV using $ H \to WW $ decays | JHEP 03 (2017) 032 | CMS-HIG-15-010 1606.01522 |
| 17 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of differential cross sections of Higgs boson production through gluon fusion in the $ H\rightarrow WW^{*}\rightarrow e\nu \mu \nu $ final state at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | EPJC 83 (2023) 774 | 2301.06822 |
| 18 | ATLAS Collaboration | Fiducial and differential cross-section measurements for the vector-boson-fusion production of the Higgs boson in the $ H \rightarrow WW^{\ast} \rightarrow e\nu\mu\nu $ decay channel at 13 $ \text{TeV} $ with the ATLAS detector | PRD 108 (2023) 072003 | 2304.03053 |
| 19 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the leptonic WW decay mode at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 03 (2021) 003 | CMS-HIG-19-002 2007.01984 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the decay mode to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | PRL 128 (2022) 081805 | CMS-HIG-20-015 2107.11486 |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | Search for boosted Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion in the $ H\rightarrow b\bar{b} $ decay mode using LHC proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2023 CMS-PAS-HIG-21-020 |
CMS-PAS-HIG-21-020 |
| 22 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of the total and differential Higgs boson production cross-sections at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector by combining the $ H \to ZZ^{*}\to 4\ell $ and $ H\to\gamma\gamma $ decay channels | JHEP 05 (2023) 028 | 2207.08615 |
| 23 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of the $ H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ and $ H \rightarrow ZZ^* \rightarrow 4 \ell $ cross-sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector | EPJC 84 (2024) 78 | 2306.11379 |
| 24 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 25 | CMS Collaboration | Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 | JINST 19 (2024) P05064 | CMS-PRF-21-001 2309.05466 |
| 26 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 01 (2019) 183 | CMS-HIG-17-025 1807.03825 |
| 27 | 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 |
| 28 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 29 | CMS Collaboration | Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV in 2022 at CMS | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024 | CMS-PAS-LUM-22-001 |
| 30 | 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 |
| 31 | 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 |
| 32 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 33 | R. Frederix and S. Frixione | Merging meets matching in MC@NLO | JHEP 12 (2012) 061 | 1209.6215 |
| 34 | K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi | NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production | JHEP 10 (2013) 222 | 1309.0017 |
| 35 | K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi | MINLO: Multi-scale improved NLO | JHEP 10 (2012) 155 | 1206.3572 |
| 36 | A. Kardos, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Three-jet production in POWHEG | JHEP 04 (2014) 043 | 1402.4001 |
| 37 | A. Karlberg et al. | Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13.6 TeV | 2402.09955 | |
| 38 | Sherpa Collaboration | Event generation with Sherpa 2.2 | SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034 | 1905.09127 |
| 39 | C. Bierlich et al. | A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 | SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8 | 2203.11601 |
| 40 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS muon trigger system in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JINST 16 (2021) P07001 | CMS-MUO-19-001 2102.04790 |
| 41 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | EPJC 80 (2020) 4 | CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 42 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4--a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 43 | 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 |
|
| 44 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 45 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV | JINST 10 (2015) P08010 | CMS-EGM-14-001 1502.02702 |
| 46 | M. Oreglia | A Study of the Reactions $ \psi^\prime \to \gamma \gamma \psi $ | PhD thesis, Standford University, 1980 | |
| 47 | TMVA Collaboration | TMVA - Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis | physics/0703039 | |
| 48 | CMS Collaboration | Observation of the Diphoton Decay of the Higgs Boson and Measurement of Its Properties | EPJC 74 (2014) 3076 | CMS-HIG-13-001 1407.0558 |
| 49 | CMS Collaboration | A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel | PLB 805 (2020) 135425 | CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398 |
| 50 | T. Chen and C. Guestrin | XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system | in Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Know. Discov. Data Min, 2016 link |
|
| 51 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV | JHEP 01 (2011) 080 | CMS-EWK-10-002 1012.2466 |
| 52 | G. Papamakarios et al. | Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference | ||
| 53 | C. C. Daumann et al. | One flow to correct them all: improving simulations in high-energy physics with a single normalising flow and a switch | 2403.18582 | |
| 54 | G. Papamakarios, T. Pavlakou, and I. Murray | Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation | 1705.07057 | |
| 55 | C. Durkan, A. Bekasov, I. Murray, and G. Papamakarios | Neural spline flows | ||
| 56 | A. Paszke et al. | Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library | ||
| 57 | F. Rozet et al. | Zuko: Normalizing flows in pytorch | link | |
| 58 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | |
| 59 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | Fastjet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | |
| 60 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | JINST 15 (2020) P09018 | |
| 61 | CMS Collaboration | Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV | JINST 12 (2017) P02014 | CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663 |
| 62 | 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 |
| 63 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 11 (2018) 185 | CMS-HIG-16-040 1804.02716 |
| 64 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{\mathrm{s}} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2021) 027 | CMS-HIG-19-015 2103.06956 |
| 65 | G. P. Salam and E. Slade | Cuts for two-body decays at colliders | JHEP 11 (2021) 220 | 2106.08329 |
| 66 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS Statistical Analysis and Combination Tool: COMBINE | CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614 |
|
| 67 | P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies | Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method | JINST 10 (2015) P04015 | 1408.6865 |
| 68 | R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston | Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples | Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219 | |
| 69 | J. S. Conway | Incorporating Nuisance Parameters in Likelihoods for Multisource Spectra | in , p--120, 2011 PHYSTAT (2011) 115 |
1103.0354 |
| 70 | J. Campbell, M. Carena, R. Harnik, and Z. Liu | Interference in the $ gg\rightarrow h \rightarrow \gamma\gamma $ On-Shell Rate and the Higgs Boson Total Width | PRL 119 (2017) 181801 | 1704.08259 |
| 71 | P. Nason | A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 72 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 73 | 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 |
| 74 | E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini | Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM | JHEP 02 (2012) 088 | 1111.2854 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|