CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-B2G-18-008 ; CERN-EP-2019-056
Search for resonances decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}\mathrm{q\bar{q}}'\ell\nu$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
JHEP 10 (2019) 125
Abstract: A search for new massive particles decaying into a pair of Higgs bosons in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is presented. Data were collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The search is performed for resonances with a mass between 0.8 and 3.5 TeV using events in which one Higgs boson decays into a bottom quark pair and the other decays into two W bosons that subsequently decay into a lepton, a neutrino, and a quark pair. The Higgs boson decays are reconstructed with techniques that identify final state quarks as substructure within boosted jets. The data are consistent with standard model expectations. Exclusion limits are placed on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for generic spin-0 and spin-2 massive resonances. The results are interpreted in the context of radion and bulk graviton production in models with a warped extra spatial dimension. These are the best results to date from searches for an HH resonance decaying to this final state, and they are comparable to the results from searches in other channels for resonances with masses below 1.5 TeV.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Pre-modeling and pre-fit distributions of the discriminating variables, which are described in the text, are shown for data (points) and SM processes (filled histograms) as predicted directly from simulation. The statistical uncertainty of the simulated sample is shown as the hatched band. The solid lines correspond to spin-0 signals for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV. The product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons is set to 2 pb for both signal models. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of all background processes.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
The pre-modeling and pre-fit distributions of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}/m$ discriminating variable is shown for data (points) and SM processes (filled histograms) as predicted directly from simulation. The statistical uncertainty of the simulated sample is shown as the hatched band. The solid lines correspond to spin-0 signals for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV. The product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons is set to 2 pb for both signal models. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of all background processes.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
The pre-modeling and pre-fit distributions of the $m_{\mathrm{D}}$ discriminating variable is shown for data (points) and SM processes (filled histograms) as predicted directly from simulation. The statistical uncertainty of the simulated sample is shown as the hatched band. The solid lines correspond to spin-0 signals for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV. The product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons is set to 2 pb for both signal models. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of all background processes.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
The pre-modeling and pre-fit distributions of the $\mathrm{q\bar{q}'} \tau_{2}/\tau_{1}$ discriminating variable is shown for data (points) and SM processes (filled histograms) as predicted directly from simulation. The statistical uncertainty of the simulated sample is shown as the hatched band. The solid lines correspond to spin-0 signals for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV. The product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons is set to 2 pb for both signal models. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of all background processes.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
The pre-modeling and pre-fit distributions of the $m_{\mathrm{b\bar{b}}}$ discriminating variable is shown for data (points) and SM processes (filled histograms) as predicted directly from simulation. The statistical uncertainty of the simulated sample is shown as the hatched band. The solid lines correspond to spin-0 signals for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV. The product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons is set to 2 pb for both signal models. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of all background processes.

png pdf
Figure 2:
The fit result compared to data in the $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ CR (upper plots) and ${{\mathrm {q}}/ {\mathrm {g}}}$ CR (lower plots), projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ (left) and ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ (right). Events from all categories are combined. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. The lower panels show ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
The fit result compared to data in the $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ CR, projected in

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
The fit result compared to data in the $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ CR, projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$. Events from all categories are combined. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
The fit result compared to data in the ${{\mathrm {q}}/ {\mathrm {g}}}$ CR,

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
The fit result compared to data in the ${{\mathrm {q}}/ {\mathrm {g}}}$ CR, projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$. Events from all categories are combined. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the electron event categories. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panels show ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the e, bL, LP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the e, bL, HP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the e, bM, LP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the e, bM, HP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-e:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the e, bT, LP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-f:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the e, bT, HP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the muon event categories. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panels show ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the $\mu$, bL, LP muon event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the $\mu$, bL, HP muon event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the $\mu$, bM, LP muon event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the $\mu$, bM, HP muon event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-e:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the $\mu$, bT, LP muon event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-f:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ for the $\mu$, bT, HP muon event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the electron event categories. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panels show ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the e, bL, LP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the e, bL, HP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the e, bM, LP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the e, bM, HP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5-e:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the e, bT, LP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5-f:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the e, bT, HP electron event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon event categories. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panels show ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon $\mu$, bL, LP event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon $\mu$, bL, HP event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon $\mu$, bM, LP event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon $\mu$, bM, HP event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6-e:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon $\mu$, bT, LP event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 6-f:
The fit result compared to data projected in ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ for the muon $\mu$, bT, HP event category. The fit result is the filled histogram, with the different colors indicating different background categories. The background shape uncertainty is shown as the hatched band. Example spin-0 signal distributions for $ {m_{{\text {X}}}} $ of 1 and 2.5 TeV are shown as solid lines, with the product of the cross section and branching fraction to two Higgs bosons set to 0.2 pb. The lower panel shows ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction to HH for a generic spin-0 (left) and spin-2 (right) boson X, as a function of mass. Example radion and bulk graviton predictions are also shown. The HH branching fraction is assumed to be 25 and 10%, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction to HH for a generic spin-0 boson X, as a function of mass. Example radion predictions are also shown. The HH branching fraction is assumed to be 25%.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction to HH for a generic spin-2 boson X, as a function of mass. Example bulk graviton predictions are also shown. The HH branching fraction is assumed to be 10%.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Event categorization and corresponding category labels. The 12 independent event categories are formed by applying a single selection from each of the three categorization types. For the ${{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} \text {jet}}$ subjet b tagging type, "medium'' refers to the subjets that pass the medium b tagging operating point and "loose'' refers to those that pass the loose, but not the medium, operating point.

png pdf
Table 2:
The four exclusive background categories with their kinematical properties and defining number of generator-level quarks within $ {\Delta R} <$ 0.8 of the ${{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} \text {jet}}$ axis.

png pdf
Table 3:
The systematic uncertainties included in the maximum likelihood fit. The "type'' indicates if the uncertainty affects process yield $Y$ or the shape of the ${m_{{{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}}$ or ${m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}}$ distributions. The processes that they are assigned to, their initial sizes, and the number of independent nuisance parameters, $N_\text {p}$, for each uncertainty are listed. Uncertainty sizes that vary by event category are listed with category labels. The labels $Y$, $S$, and $R$ denote how a single uncertainty affects yield, scale, and resolution, respectively.
Summary
A search has been presented for new particles decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons (H) where one decays into a bottom quark pair ($\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$) and the other into two W bosons that subsequently decay into a lepton, a neutrino, and a quark pair. The large Lorentz boost of the Higgs bosons leads to the distinct experimental signature of one large-radius jet with substructure consistent with the decay $\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$ and a second large-radius jet with a nearby isolated lepton consistent with the decay $\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W}^*$. This search uses a sample of proton-proton collisions collected at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV by the CMS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ . The primary standard model background, top quark pair production, is suppressed by reconstructing the HH decay chain and applying mass constraints. The signal and background yields are estimated by a two-dimensional template fit in the plane of the ${\mathrm{b\bar{b}} \text{jet}}$ mass and the HH resonance mass. The templates are validated in a variety of data control regions and are shown to model the data well. The data are consistent with the expected standard model background. The results represent upper limits on the product of cross section and branching fraction for new bosons decaying to HH. The observed limit at 95% confidence level for a spin-0 resonance ranges from 123 fb at 0.8 TeV to 8.3 fb at 3.5 TeV, while the limit for a spin-2 resonance is 103 fb at 0.8 TeV and 7.8 fb at 3.5 TeV. These are the best results to date from searches for an HH resonance decaying to this final state. The results are comparable to the results from searches in other channels for resonances with masses below 1.5 TeV.
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) 01 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 F. Englert and R. Brout Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons PRL 13 (1964) 321
5 P. W. Higgs Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons PRL 13 (1964) 508
6 G. C. Branco et al. Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models PR 516 (2012) 1 1106.0034
7 P. Ramond Dual theory for free fermions PRD 3 (1971) 2415
8 Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman Extension of the algebra of Poincar$ \'e $ group generators and violation of P invariance JEPTL 13 (1971)323
9 A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz Factorizable dual model of pions NPB 31 (1971) 86
10 D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov Possible universal neutrino interaction JEPTL 16 (1972)438
11 J. Wess and B. Zumino A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations PLB 49 (1974) 52
12 J. Wess and B. Zumino Supergauge transformations in four dimensions NPB 70 (1974) 39
13 P. Fayet Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino NPB 90 (1975) 104
14 H. P. Nilles Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1
15 L. Randall and R. Sundrum A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension PRL 83 (1999) 3370 hep-ph/9905221
16 W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise Modulus stabilization with bulk fields PRL 83 (1999) 4922 hep-ph/9907447
17 O. DeWolfe, D. Z. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, and A. Karch Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity PRD 62 (2000) 046008 hep-th/9909134
18 C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall, and J. Terning Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization PRD 62 (2000) 045015 hep-ph/9911406
19 C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser, and G. D. Kribs Radion dynamics and electroweak physics PRD 63 (2001) 065002 hep-th/0008151
20 H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, and T. G. Rizzo Phenomenology of the Randall-Sundrum gauge hierarchy model PRL 84 (2000) 2080 hep-ph/9909255
21 K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni Warped gravitons at the LHC and beyond PRD 76 (2007) 036006 hep-ph/0701186
22 A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, L. Randall, and L.-T. Wang Searching for the Kaluza-Klein graviton in bulk RS models JHEP 09 (2007) 013 hep-ph/0701150
23 ATLAS Collaboration Searches for Higgs boson pair production in the $ hh\to bb\tau\tau, \gamma\gamma WW^*, \gamma\gamma bb, bbbb $ channels with the ATLAS detector PRD 92 (2015) 092004 1509.04670
24 ATLAS Collaboration Search for a new resonance decaying to a $ W $ or $ Z $ boson and a Higgs boson in the $ \ell \ell / \ell \nu / \nu \nu + b \bar{b} $ final states with the ATLAS detector EPJC 75 (2015) 263 1503.08089
25 ATLAS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ b\bar{b}b\bar{b} $ final state from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 75 (2015) 412 1506.00285
26 ATLAS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ \gamma\gamma b\bar{b} $ final state using pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV from the ATLAS detector PRL 114 (2015) 081802 1406.5053
27 ATLAS Collaboration Search for $ W\!Z $ resonances in the fully leptonic channel using $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 737 (2014) 223 1406.4456
28 ATLAS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying to a $ W $ or $ Z $ boson and a Higgs boson in the $ q\bar{q}^{(\prime)}b\bar{b} $ final state in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 774 (2017) 494 1707.06958
29 ATLAS Collaboration Search for $ WW/WZ $ resonance production in $ \ell \nu qq $ final states in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2018) 042 1710.07235
30 ATLAS Collaboration Search for resonant $ WZ $ production in the fully leptonic final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 787 (2018) 68 1806.01532
31 ATLAS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into $ WW $ in the $ e\nu\mu\nu $ final state in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 78 (2018) 24 1710.01123
32 ATLAS Collaboration Searches for heavy $ ZZ $ and $ ZW $ resonances in the $ \ell\ell qq $ and $ \nu\nu qq $ final states in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2018) 009 1708.09638
33 ATLAS Collaboration Search for heavy ZZ resonances in the $ \ell ^+\ell ^-\ell ^+\ell ^- $ and $ \ell ^+\ell ^-\nu \bar{\nu} $ final states using proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 78 (2018) 293 1712.06386
34 ATLAS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into a $ W $ or $ Z $ boson and a Higgs boson in final states with leptons and $ b $-jets in 36 fb$ ^{-1} $ of $ \sqrt s = $ 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2018) 174 1712.06518
35 ATLAS Collaboration Search for diboson resonances with boson-tagged jets in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 777 (2018) 91 1708.04445
36 ATLAS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ b\bar{b}WW^{*} $ decay mode at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector Submitted to JHEP 1811.04671
37 CMS Collaboration Combination of searches for heavy resonances decaying to WW, WZ, ZZ, WH, and ZH boson pairs in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV PLB 774 (2017) 533 CMS-B2G-16-007
1705.09171
38 CMS Collaboration Search for a heavy resonance decaying into a Z boson and a vector boson in the $ \nu\overline{\nu}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}} $ final state JHEP 07 (2018) 075 CMS-B2G-17-005
1803.03838
39 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into two Higgs bosons or into a Higgs boson and a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV JHEP 01 (2019) 051 CMS-B2G-17-006
1808.01365
40 CMS Collaboration Search for a heavy resonance decaying into a Z boson and a Z or W boson in 2$ \ell $2q final states at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 09 (2018) 101 CMS-B2G-17-013
1803.10093
41 CMS Collaboration Search for production of Higgs boson pairs in the four b quark final state using large-area jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 01 (2019) 040 CMS-B2G-17-019
1808.01473
42 CMS Collaboration Searches for a heavy scalar boson H decaying to a pair of 125 GeV Higgs bosons hh or for a heavy pseudoscalar boson A decaying to Zh, in the final states with $ \text{h} \to \tau \tau $ PLB 755 (2016) 217 CMS-HIG-14-034
1510.01181
43 CMS Collaboration Search for massive resonances decaying into WW, WZ, ZZ, qW, and qZ with dijet final states at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PRD 97 (2018) 072006 CMS-B2G-17-001
1708.05379
44 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances that decay into a vector boson and a Higgs boson in hadronic final states at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 77 (2017) 636 CMS-B2G-17-002
1707.01303
45 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into a vector boson and a Higgs boson in final states with charged leptons, neutrinos and b quarks at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2018) 172 CMS-B2G-17-004
1807.02826
46 CMS Collaboration Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons decaying to two bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV PLB 749 (2015) 560 CMS-HIG-14-013
1503.04114
47 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into a vector boson and a Higgs boson in final states with charged leptons, neutrinos, and b quarks PLB 768 (2017) 137 CMS-B2G-16-003
1610.08066
48 CMS Collaboration Search for a massive resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PLB 781 (2018) 244 1710.04960
49 CMS Collaboration Search for a heavy resonance decaying to a pair of vector bosons in the lepton plus merged jet final state at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 05 (2018) 088 CMS-B2G-16-029
1802.09407
50 CMS Collaboration Search for massive resonances decaying into WW, WZ or ZZ bosons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2017) 162 CMS-B2G-16-004
1612.09159
51 CMS Collaboration Search for ZZ resonances in the 2$ \ell 2 \nu $ final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2018) 003 CMS-B2G-16-023
1711.04370
52 CMS Collaboration Search for new resonances decaying via WZ to leptons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 740 (2015) 83 CMS-EXO-12-025
1407.3476
53 CMS Collaboration Search for massive WH resonances decaying into the $ \ell \nu \mathrm{b} \overline{\mathrm{b}} $ final state at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV EPJC 76 (2016) 237 CMS-EXO-14-010
1601.06431
54 CMS Collaboration Search for a massive resonance decaying into a Higgs boson and a W or Z boson in hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JHEP 02 (2016) 145 CMS-EXO-14-009
1506.01443
55 CMS Collaboration Search for narrow high-mass resonances in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV decaying to a Z and a Higgs boson PLB 748 (2015) 255 CMS-EXO-13-007
1502.04994
56 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
57 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
58 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
59 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
60 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
61 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
62 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
63 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
64 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
65 T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi $ W^+W^- $, $ WZ $ and $ ZZ $ production in the POWHEG BOX JHEP 11 (2011) 078 1107.5051
66 P. Nason and G. Zanderighi $ W^+ W^- $, $ W Z $ and $ Z Z $ production in the POWHEG-BOX-V2 EPJC 74 (2014) 2702 1311.1365
67 R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli Single-top $ t $-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO JHEP 09 (2012) 130 1207.5391
68 H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX PRD 91 (2015) 094003 1501.04498
69 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
70 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
71 R. D. Ball et al. Impact of heavy quark masses on parton distributions and LHC phenomenology NPB 849 (2011) 296 1101.1300
72 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
73 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
74 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
75 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
76 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
77 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
78 K. Rehermann and B. Tweedie Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC JHEP 03 (2011) 059 1007.2221
79 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
80 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup per particle identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
81 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
82 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
83 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data
84 Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber Better jet clustering algorithms JHEP 08 (1997) 001 hep-ph/9707323
85 M. Wobisch and T. Wengler Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering in Proceedings of the Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics, Hamburg, Germany, p. 270 1998 hep-ph/9907280
86 M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam Towards an understanding of jet substructure JHEP 09 (2013) 029 1307.0007
87 J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC PRL 100 (2008) 242001 0802.2470
88 A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler Soft drop JHEP 05 (2014) 146 1402.2657
89 J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg Identifying boosted objects with N-subjettiness JHEP 03 (2011) 015 1011.2268
90 S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber Longitudinally invariant $ k_\perp $ clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions NPB 406 (1993) 187
91 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments PRL 114 (2015) 191803 1503.07589
92 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
93 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector CMS-PAS-JME-17-001 CMS-PAS-JME-17-001
94 M. Rosenblatt Remarks on some nonparametric estimates of a density function Ann. Math. Statist. 27 (1956) 832
95 B. W. Silverman Density estimation for statistics and data analysis Chapman and Hall, 1986 ISBN 0412246201
96 K. S. Cranmer Kernel estimation in high-energy physics CPC 136 (2001) 198 hep-ex/0011057
97 D. W. Scott Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization John Wiley and Sons, 1992 ISBN 0471547700
98 M. J. Oreglia A study of the reactions $\psi' \to \gamma\gamma \psi$ PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980 SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D
99 J. Gaiser Charmonium Spectroscopy From Radiative Decays of the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ PhD thesis, SLAC
100 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
101 M. Cacciari et al. The $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ cross-section at 1.8 TeV and 1.96 TeV: A study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence JHEP 04 (2004) 068 hep-ph/0303085
102 S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders JHEP 07 (2003) 028 hep-ph/0306211
103 S. Baker and R. D. Cousins Clarification of the use of chi square and likelihood functions in fits to histograms NIM221 (1984) 437
104 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
105 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
106 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CLs technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
107 A. Oliveira Gravity particles from warped extra dimensions, predictions for LHC 1404.0102
108 M. Gouzevitch et al. Scale-invariant resonance tagging in multijet events and new physics in Higgs pair production JHEP 07 (2013) 148 1303.6636
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN