Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-SUS-24-001 | ||
| Search for bosons of an extended Higgs sector in b quark final states in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 20 July 2024 | ||
| Abstract: A search for beyond the Standard Model neutral Higgs bosons in final states with bottom quarks is performed with the CMS detector. The data analyzed were recorded in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of up to 126.9 fb$ ^{-1} $. No signal above the standard model background expectation is observed. Stringent upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction are set for Higgs bosons in the mass range of 125-1800 GeV. The results are interpreted in benchmark scenarios of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), as well as suitable classes of two Higgs doublet models (2HDMs). | ||
| Links: CDS record (PDF) ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Example Feynman diagrams for the signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Example Feynman diagrams for the signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Example Feynman diagrams for the signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
Example Feynman diagrams for the signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Signal efficiency as a function of the Higgs boson mass after triple b tag selection in red and b tag veto selection in blue for 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Signal efficiency as a function of the Higgs boson mass after triple b tag selection in red and b tag veto selection in blue for 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Signal efficiency as a function of the Higgs boson mass after triple b tag selection in red and b tag veto selection in blue for 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-c:
Signal efficiency as a function of the Higgs boson mass after triple b tag selection in red and b tag veto selection in blue for 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $ m_{\phi} $ in the 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. The solid curves show the signal parameterisations by double-sided Crystal Ball probability density functions. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $ m_{\phi} $ in the 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. The solid curves show the signal parameterisations by double-sided Crystal Ball probability density functions. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $ m_{\phi} $ in the 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. The solid curves show the signal parameterisations by double-sided Crystal Ball probability density functions. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-c:
Signal shapes for three representative values of the Higgs boson mass $ m_{\phi} $ in the 2017 SL (top left), 2017 FH (top right), and 2018 FH (bottom) channels. The solid curves show the signal parameterisations by double-sided Crystal Ball probability density functions. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 SL channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 SL channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 SL channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 SL channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-c:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-d:
Invariant mass distributions of the three fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2017 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Invariant mass distributions of the four fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2018 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
Invariant mass distributions of the four fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2018 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
Invariant mass distributions of the four fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2018 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-c:
Invariant mass distributions of the four fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2018 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-d:
Invariant mass distributions of the four fit ranges in the b tag veto control region for the 2018 FH channel, overlay with the fitted functions. The chi-square goodness of fit test and corresponding p-value are obtained on each plot. The lower panels show the difference between data and the fitted function, divided by the estimated statistical uncertainty for each bin. Good agreement between data and the fitted functions is achieved. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Fictituous expected and observed upper limits for cross-section times branching fraction at 95% CL, as they are determined by using the validation region (VR) as a proxy for the signal region (SR) in the 2017 SL (left) and the 2018 FH analysis (right). They are computed as a validation of background model and signal extraction method, and do not represent an actual cross-section measurement in the VR. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
Fictituous expected and observed upper limits for cross-section times branching fraction at 95% CL, as they are determined by using the validation region (VR) as a proxy for the signal region (SR) in the 2017 SL (left) and the 2018 FH analysis (right). They are computed as a validation of background model and signal extraction method, and do not represent an actual cross-section measurement in the VR. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
Fictituous expected and observed upper limits for cross-section times branching fraction at 95% CL, as they are determined by using the validation region (VR) as a proxy for the signal region (SR) in the 2017 SL (left) and the 2018 FH analysis (right). They are computed as a validation of background model and signal extraction method, and do not represent an actual cross-section measurement in the VR. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-a:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-b:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-c:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the SL category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-c:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-d:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2017 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 10:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-a:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-b:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-c:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-d:
Background-only fits of the $M_{12}$ distribution in each fit range of the 2018 analysis in the FH category, shown together with $ \pm $1$\sigma $, $ \pm $2$\sigma $ uncertainty bands extracted from the fit. The pulls with respect to the estimated background are shown in the lower panel. |
png pdf |
Figure 11:
Expected and observed upper limits for the Higgs b-associated production cross-section times branching fraction of the decay into a b-quark pair at 95% CL as a function of $ m_{\phi} $ for the 2017 SL category. The green (yellow) bands correspond to $ \pm $1(2)$ \sigma $ bands. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. |
png pdf |
Figure 12:
Expected and observed upper limits for the Higgs b-associated production cross-section times branching fraction of the decay into a b-quark pair at 95% CL as a function of $ m_{\phi} $ for the 2017 FH category. The green (yellow) bands correspond to $ \pm $1(2)$ \sigma $ bands. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. |
png pdf |
Figure 13:
Expected and observed upper limits for the Higgs b-associated production cross-section times branching fraction of the decay into a b-quark pair at 95% CL as a function of $ m_{\phi} $ for the 2018 FH category. The green (yellow) bands correspond to $ \pm $1(2)$ \sigma $ bands. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. |
png pdf |
Figure 14:
Expected and observed upper limits for the Higgs b-associated production cross-section times branching fraction of the decay into a b-quark pair at 95% CL as a function of $ m_{\phi} $, corresponding to the Run 2 combination. The green (yellow) bands correspond to $ \pm $1(2)$ \sigma $ bands. The vertical line separates the mass range where only the 2017 SL category contributes on its left, from the region where also the 2017 FH and 2018 FH categories contribute on its right. |
png pdf |
Figure 15:
Interpretation in the $ M_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{125}} $ scenario of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $ \mu = + $1 TeV. The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 16:
Interpretation in the $ M_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{125}} $ scenario of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $ \mu = - $1 TeV (top left), $ \mu = - $2 TeV (top right), and $ \mu = - $3 TeV (bottom). The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 16-a:
Interpretation in the $ M_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{125}} $ scenario of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $ \mu = - $1 TeV (top left), $ \mu = - $2 TeV (top right), and $ \mu = - $3 TeV (bottom). The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 16-b:
Interpretation in the $ M_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{125}} $ scenario of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $ \mu = - $1 TeV (top left), $ \mu = - $2 TeV (top right), and $ \mu = - $3 TeV (bottom). The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 16-c:
Interpretation in the $ M_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{125}} $ scenario of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. The higgsino mass parameter has been set to $ \mu = - $1 TeV (top left), $ \mu = - $2 TeV (top right), and $ \mu = - $3 TeV (bottom). The hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 17:
Interpretation in the $ m_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{mod+}} $ (left) and hMSSM (right) scenarios of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. In the left plot, the hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 17-a:
Interpretation in the $ m_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{mod+}} $ (left) and hMSSM (right) scenarios of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. In the left plot, the hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 17-b:
Interpretation in the $ m_{\mathrm{h}}^{\text{mod+}} $ (left) and hMSSM (right) scenarios of the MSSM: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of the mass of the CP-odd boson, $ m_{\mathrm{A}} $. In the left plot, the hashed area indicates the parameter region in which the mass of the lightest MSSM Higgs boson does not coincide with 125 GeV within a margin of 3 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 18:
Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{H}} $ for $ \cos(\beta-\alpha)= $ 0.1 (left), and as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 300 GeV (right), for the 2HDM Type-II scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). |
png pdf |
Figure 18-a:
Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{H}} $ for $ \cos(\beta-\alpha)= $ 0.1 (left), and as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 300 GeV (right), for the 2HDM Type-II scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). |
png pdf |
Figure 18-b:
Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{H}} $ for $ \cos(\beta-\alpha)= $ 0.1 (left), and as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 300 GeV (right), for the 2HDM Type-II scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). |
png pdf |
Figure 18-c:
Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{H}} $ for $ \cos(\beta-\alpha)= $ 0.1 (left), and as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 300 GeV (right), for the 2HDM Type-II scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). |
png pdf |
Figure 18-d:
Interpretation in 2HDM scenarios: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{H}} $ for $ \cos(\beta-\alpha)= $ 0.1 (left), and as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 300 GeV (right), for the 2HDM Type-II scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). |
png pdf |
Figure 19:
Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 140, 600, 900 and 1200 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 19-a:
Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 140, 600, 900 and 1200 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 19-b:
Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 140, 600, 900 and 1200 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 19-c:
Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 140, 600, 900 and 1200 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 19-d:
Interpretation in the 2HDM flipped scenario: Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the parameter $ \tan\beta $ as a function of $ \cos(\beta-\alpha) $ for masses of $ m_{\mathrm{A}} = m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 140, 600, 900 and 1200 GeV. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Definition of fit ranges for 2017 SL, 2017 FH, and 2018 FH channels in terms of the reconstructed mass $M_{12}$ and the associated values of the nominal Higgs boson mass, $ m_{\phi} $, which are probed in this fit range. |
| Summary |
| A search for beyond the Standard Model neutral Higgs bosons, $ \phi $, produced in association with b quarks and decaying into a pair of b quarks is presented using the full Run 2 CMS data set of 13 TeV pp collisions, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of up to 126.9 fb$^{-1}$. Two methods of selecting the multi-b quark final state are used, the fully hadronic and semileptonic selections, allowing for a sensitive mass range extending from 125 to 1800 GeV. No significant excess of events above the expected SM background is observed. Model-independent exclusion limits at 95% confidence level in the production cross section times branching fraction are obtained. The results are also interpreted as constraints in the parameter space of MSSM and 2HDM scenarios sensitive to this search. These results represent the most stringent limits in the high-mass regime with this final state to date. |
| 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) 52 | 2207.00092 |
| 5 | 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 |
| 6 | 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 |
| 7 | 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 |
| 8 | G. C. Branco et al. | Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models | Phys. Rep. 516 (2012) 1 | 1106.0034 |
| 9 | H. P. Nilles | Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics | Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1 | |
| 10 | P. Drechsel, G. Moortgat-Pick, and G. Weiglein | Prospects for direct searches for light Higgs bosons at the ILC with 250 GeV | EPJC 80 (2020) 922 | 1801.09662 |
| 11 | M. Carena et al. | MSSM Higgs boson searches at the LHC: benchmark scenarios after the discovery of a Higgs-like particle | EPJC 73 (2013) 2552 | 1302.7033 |
| 12 | M. S. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, C. E. M. Wagner, and G. Weiglein | MSSM Higgs boson searches at the Tevatron and the LHC: Impact of different benchmark scenarios | EPJC 45 (2006) 797 | hep-ph/0511023 |
| 13 | E. Bagnaschi et al. | MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios for Run 2 and Beyond | EPJC 79 (2019) 617 | 1808.07542 |
| 14 | L. Maiani, A. D. Polosa, and V. Riquer | Bounds to the Higgs sector masses in minimal supersymmetry from LHC data | PLB 724 (2013) 274 | 1305.2172 |
| 15 | A. Djouadi et al. | The post-Higgs MSSM scenario: Habemus MSSM? | EPJC 73 (2013) 2650 | 1307.5205 |
| 16 | A. Djouadi et al. | Fully covering the MSSM Higgs sector at the LHC | JHEP 06 (2015) 168 | 1502.05653 |
| 17 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group | Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties | CERN, 2013 link |
1307.1347 |
| 18 | ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations, LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches | Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons at LEP | EPJC 47 (2006) 547 | hep-ex/0602042 |
| 19 | CDF and D0 Collaborations | Search for neutral Higgs bosons in events with multiple bottom quarks at the Tevatron | PRD 86 (2012) 091101 | 1207.2757 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | Search for a Higgs boson decaying into a b-quark pair and produced in association with b quarks in proton-proton collisions at 7TeV | PLB 722 (2013) 207 | CMS-HIG-12-033 1302.2892 |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying into a pair of bottom quarks | JHEP 11 (2015) 071 | CMS-HIG-14-017 1506.08329 |
| 22 | ATLAS Collaboration | Search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons produced in association with $ b $-quarks and decaying into $ b $-quarks at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | PRD 102 (2020) 032004 | 1907.02749 |
| 23 | CMS Collaboration | Search for beyond the standard model Higgs bosons decaying into a $ \mathrm{b\overline{b}} $ pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 08 (2018) 113 | CMS-HIG-16-018 1805.12191 |
| 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 | 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 |
| 27 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 28 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 29 | 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 |
|
| 30 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 31 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) | 1111.6097 |
| 32 | 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 |
| 33 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV | JINST 13 (2018) P05011 | CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158 |
| 34 | E. Bols et al. | Jet flavour classification using DeepJet | JINST 15 (2020) P12012 | 2008.10519 |
| 35 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector | CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2018-058, 2018 CDS |
|
| 36 | CMS Collaboration | B-tagging performance of the CMS legacy dataset 2018 | CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2021-004, 2021 CDS |
|
| 37 | 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 |
| 38 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 39 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 40 | 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 |
| 41 | B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth | Higgs boson production in association with b jets in the POWHEG BOX | PRD 93 (2016) 014030 | 1509.05843 |
| 42 | J. Alwall et al. | MadGraph 5: Going beyond | JHEP 06 (2011) 128 | 1106.0522 |
| 43 | 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 |
| 44 | S. Frixione and B. R. Webber | Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations | JHEP 06 (2002) 029 | hep-ph/0204244 |
| 45 | J. Alwall et al. | Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions | EPJC 53 (2008) 473 | 0706.2569 |
| 46 | J. Butterworth et al. | PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II | JPG 43 (2016) 023001 | 1510.03865 |
| 47 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 48 | 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 |
| 49 | T. Sjöstrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 50 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 51 | SPEAR Crystal Ball Collaboration | A Large Solid Angle Neutral Detector For SPEAR II (The Crystal Ball) | Technical Report, SLAC, 1979 link |
|
| 52 | A. Vagnerini | Search for Higgs bosons in the final state with $ b $-quarks in the semi-leptonic channel with the CMS 2017 data | PhD thesis, Hamburg U., Hamburg, 2020 link |
|
| 53 | P. Asmuss | Search for high-mass bosons of an extended Higgs sector in b quark final states using the 2017 data set of the CMS experiment | PhD thesis, Hamburg U., Hamburg, 2021 link |
|
| 54 | Belle Collaboration | A detailed test of the CsI(Tl) calorimeter for BELLE with photon beams of energy between 20 MeV and 5.4 GeV | NIM A 441 (2000) 401 | |
| 55 | 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 |
| 56 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | technical report, CERN, 2018 CDS |
|
| 57 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | technical report, CERN, 2019 CDS |
|
| 58 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration | Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector | link | 1610.07922 |
| 59 | ATLAS, CMS, LHC Higgs Combination Group Collaboration | Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 | Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, CERN, Geneva, 2011 | |
| 60 | T. Junk | Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics | NIM A 434 (1999) 435 | hep-ex/9902006 |
| 61 | A. L. Read | Presentation of search results: The $ CL_s $ technique | JPG 28 (2002) 2693 | |
| 62 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
| 63 | H. E. Haber and O. Stål | New LHC benchmarks for the $ \mathcal{CP} $ -conserving two-Higgs-doublet model | EPJC 75 (2015) 491 | 1507.04281 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|