CMSPASSUS24001  
Search for bosons of an extended Higgs sector in b quark final states in protonproton 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 protonproton collisions at a centreofmass 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 1251800 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 1a:
Example Feynman diagrams for the signal processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Example Feynman diagrams for the signal processes. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
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 2a:
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 2b:
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 2c:
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 doublesided Crystal Ball probability density functions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
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 doublesided Crystal Ball probability density functions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
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 doublesided Crystal Ball probability density functions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
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 doublesided 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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 4a:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 4b:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 4c:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 5a:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 5b:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 5c:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 5d:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 6a:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 6b:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 6c:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 6d:
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 chisquare goodness of fit test and corresponding pvalue 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 crosssection 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 crosssection measurement in the VR. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
Fictituous expected and observed upper limits for crosssection 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 crosssection measurement in the VR. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
Fictituous expected and observed upper limits for crosssection 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 crosssection measurement in the VR. The vertical dashed lines indicate the boundaries of the fit ranges. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Backgroundonly 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 8a:
Backgroundonly 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 8b:
Backgroundonly 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 8c:
Backgroundonly 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:
Backgroundonly 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 9a:
Backgroundonly 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 9b:
Backgroundonly 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 9c:
Backgroundonly 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 9d:
Backgroundonly 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:
Backgroundonly 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 10a:
Backgroundonly 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 10b:
Backgroundonly 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 10c:
Backgroundonly 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 10d:
Backgroundonly 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 bassociated production crosssection times branching fraction of the decay into a bquark 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 bassociated production crosssection times branching fraction of the decay into a bquark 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 bassociated production crosssection times branching fraction of the decay into a bquark 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 bassociated production crosssection times branching fraction of the decay into a bquark 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 CPodd 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 CPodd 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 16a:
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 CPodd 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 16b:
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 CPodd 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 16c:
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 CPodd 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 CPodd 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 17a:
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 CPodd 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 17b:
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 CPodd 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 TypeII scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). 
png pdf 
Figure 18a:
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 TypeII scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). 
png pdf 
Figure 18b:
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 TypeII scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). 
png pdf 
Figure 18c:
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 TypeII scenario (top), and the 2HDM Flipped scenario (bottom). 
png pdf 
Figure 18d:
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 TypeII 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 19a:
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 19b:
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 19c:
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 19d:
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 multib 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. Modelindependent 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 highmass 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  CMSHIG12028 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  CMSHIG12036 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  CMSHIG22001 2207.00043 
6  ATLAS Collaboration  Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 80 fb$ ^{1} $ of protonproton 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 protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 79 (2019) 421  CMSHIG17031 1809.10733 
8  G. C. Branco et al.  Theory and phenomenology of twoHiggsdoublet 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. MoortgatPick, 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 Higgslike 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  hepph/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 postHiggs 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  hepex/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 bquark pair and produced in association with b quarks in protonproton collisions at 7TeV  PLB 722 (2013) 207  CMSHIG12033 1302.2892 
21  CMS Collaboration  Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying into a pair of bottom quarks  JHEP 11 (2015) 071  CMSHIG14017 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  CMSHIG16018 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  CMSPRF21001 2309.05466 
26  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS Level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
27  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
28  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
29  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the PhaseII upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 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  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
33  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 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 protonproton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2018058, 2018 CDS 

36  CMS Collaboration  Btagging performance of the CMS legacy dataset 2018  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2021004, 2021 CDS 

37  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P06015  CMSMUO16001 1804.04528 
38  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/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 treelevel and nexttoleading 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  hepph/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 highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
48  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 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 4a 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 semileptonic channel with the CMS 2017 data  PhD thesis, Hamburg U., Hamburg, 2020 link 

53  P. Asmuss  Search for highmass 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 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  technical report, CERN, 2018 CDS 

57  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking 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 CMSNOTE2011005, ATLPHYSPUB2011011, ATLPHYSPUB201111, CERN, Geneva, 2011  
60  T. Junk  Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics  NIM A 434 (1999) 435  hepex/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 likelihoodbased 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 twoHiggsdoublet model  EPJC 75 (2015) 491  1507.04281 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 