CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-HIG-17-026 ; CERN-EP-2018-065
Search for $ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $ production in the $ {\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b\bar{b}}} $ decay channel with leptonic $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ decays in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
JHEP 03 (2019) 026
Abstract: A search is presented for the associated production of a standard model Higgs boson with a top quark-antiquark pair ($ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $), in which the Higgs boson decays into a b quark-antiquark pair, in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ recorded with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. Candidate $ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $ events are selected that contain either one or two electrons or muons from the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ decays and are categorised according to the number of jets. Multivariate techniques are employed to further classify the events and eventually discriminate between signal and background. The results are characterised by an observed $ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $ signal strength relative to the standard model cross section, $\mu = \sigma/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$, under the assumption of a Higgs boson mass of 125 GeV. A combined fit of multivariate discriminant distributions in all categories results in an observed (expected) upper limit on $\mu$ of 1.5 (0.9) at 95% confidence level, and a best fit value of 0.72 $\pm$ 0.24 (stat) $\pm$ 0.38 (syst), corresponding to an observed (expected) signal significance of 1.6 (2.2) standard deviations above the background-only hypothesis.
Figures & Tables Summary Additional Tables References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ production, including the subsequent decay of the Higgs boson into a b quark-antiquark pair, and the decay of the top quark-antiquark pair into final states with either one (single-lepton channel, left) or two (dilepton channel, right) electrons or muons.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ production, including the subsequent decay of the Higgs boson into a b quark-antiquark pair, and the decay of the top quark-antiquark pair into final states with one (single-lepton channel) electron or muon.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ production, including the subsequent decay of the Higgs boson into a b quark-antiquark pair, and the decay of the top quark-antiquark pair into final states with two (dilepton channel) electrons or muons.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Jet (left) and b-tagged jet (right) multiplicity in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the event selection described in the text. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties (excluding uncertainties that affect only the normalisation of the distribution) added in quadrature. The distributions observed in data (markers) are overlaid. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Jet jet multiplicity in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the event selection described in the text. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties (excluding uncertainties that affect only the normalisation of the distribution) added in quadrature. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
b-tagged jet multiplicity in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the event selection described in the text. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties (excluding uncertainties that affect only the normalisation of the distribution) added in quadrature. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Jet (left) and b-tagged jet (right) multiplicity in the dilepton (DL) channel after the event selection described in the text. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties (excluding uncertainties that affect only the normalisation of the distribution) added in quadrature. The distributions observed in data (markers) are overlaid. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Jet jet multiplicity in the dilepton (DL) channel after the event selection described in the text. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties (excluding uncertainties that affect only the normalisation of the distribution) added in quadrature. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
b-tagged jet multiplicity in the dilepton (DL) channel after the event selection described in the text. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties (excluding uncertainties that affect only the normalisation of the distribution) added in quadrature. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Illustration of the analysis strategy.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ (upper left); 5 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ (upper right); 4 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $ (lower left); and $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $ (lower right). The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distributions observed in data (markers) are overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with 5 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with 4 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $.The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Final discriminant shapes in the dilepton (DL) channel before the fit to data: BDT discriminant in the analysis category with ($\geq$4 jets, 3 b tags) (upper row) and MEM discriminant in the analysis categories with ($\geq$4 jets, 4 b tags) (lower row) with low (left) and high (right) BDT output. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distributions observed in data (markers) are overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Final discriminant shape in the dilepton (DL) channel before the fit to data: BDT discriminant in the analysis category with ($\geq$4 jets, 3 b tags). The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Final discriminant shape in the dilepton (DL) channel before the fit to data: MEM discriminant in the analysis categories with ($\geq$4 jets, 4 b tags) with low BDT output. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Final discriminant shape in the dilepton (DL) channel before the fit to data: MEM discriminant in the analysis categories with ($\geq$4 jets, 4 b tags) with high BDT output. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ (upper left); 5 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ (upper right); 4 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $ (lower left); and $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $ (lower right). The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distributions observed in data (markers) are overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with 5 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with 4 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 7-d:
Final discriminant shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data: DNN discriminant in the jet-process categories with $\geq $6 jets-$ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Final discriminant shapes in the dilepton (DL) channel after the fit to data: BDT discriminant in the analysis category with ($\geq$4 jets, 3 b tags) (upper row) and MEM discriminant in the analysis categories with ($\geq$4 jets, 4 b tags) (lower row) with low (left) and high (right) BDT output. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distributions observed in data (markers) are overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Final discriminant shapes in the dilepton (DL) channel after the fit to data: BDT discriminant in the analysis category with ($\geq$4 jets, 3 b tags). The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Final discriminant shapes in the dilepton (DL) channel after the fit to data: MEM discriminant in the analysis categories with ($\geq$4 jets, 4 b tags) (lower row) with low highBDT output. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 8-c:
Final discriminant shapes in the dilepton (DL) channel after the fit to data: MEM discriminant in the analysis categories with ($\geq$4 jets, 4 b tags) (lower row) with low highBDT output. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The distribution observed in data (markers) is overlaid. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Post-fit pull and impact on the signal strength $\mu$ of the nuisance parameters included in the fit, ordered by their impact. Only the 20 highest ranked parameters are shown, not including nuisance parameters describing the uncertainty due to the size of the simulated samples. The four highest-ranked nuisance parameters related to the jet energy scale uncertainty sources are shown as indicated in parentheses. The pulls of the nuisance parameters (black markers) are computed relative to their pre-fit values $\theta_{0}$ and uncertainties $\Delta \theta$. The impact $\Delta \mu$ is computed as the difference of the nominal best fit value of $\mu$ and the best fit value obtained when fixing the nuisance parameter under scrutiny to its best fit value $\hat{\theta}$ plus/minus its post-fit uncertainty (coloured areas).

png pdf
Figure 10:
Bins of the final discriminants as used in the fit (left), reordered by the pre-fit expected signal-to-background ratio (S/B). Each of the shown bins includes multiple bins of the final discriminants with similar S/B. The fitted signal (cyan) is compared to the expectation for the SM Higgs boson $\mu = 1$ (red). Best fit values of the signal strength modifiers $\mu $ (right) with their 68% expected confidence intervals (outer error bar), also split into their statistical (inner error bar) and systematic components.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Bins of the final discriminants as used in the fit, reordered by the pre-fit expected signal-to-background ratio (S/B). Each of the shown bins includes multiple bins of the final discriminants with similar S/B. The fitted signal (cyan) is compared to the expectation for the SM Higgs boson $\mu = 1$ (red).

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Best fit values of the signal strength modifiers $\mu $ with their 68% expected confidence intervals (outer error bar), also split into their statistical (inner error bar) and systematic components.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Median expected (dashed line) and observed (markers) 95% CL upper limits on $\mu $. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. Also shown is the limit that is expected in case a SM $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ signal ($\mu =$ 1) is present in the data (solid red line).

png pdf
Figure 12:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and (from upper left to lower right) $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $, and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-a:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-b:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-c:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-d:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-e:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 12-f:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and (from upper left to lower right) $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $, and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-c:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-d:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-e:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13-f:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and (from upper left to lower right) $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $, and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-a:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-b:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-c:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-d:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-e:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 14-f:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel before the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The expected background contributions (filled histograms) are stacked, and the expected signal distribution (line), which includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes, is superimposed. Each contribution is normalised to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, and the signal distribution is additionally scaled by a factor of 15 for better visibility. The hatched uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 15:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and (from upper left to lower right) $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $, and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 15-a:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 15-b:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 15-c:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 15-d:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 15-e:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 15-f:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (4 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and (from upper left to lower right) $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $, and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16-a:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16-b:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16-c:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16-d:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16-e:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 16-f:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (5 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and (from upper left to lower right) $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $, $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $, and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plots show the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17-a:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17-b:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17-c:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}2 {\mathrm {b}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17-d:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {\mathrm {b}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17-e:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+} {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.

png pdf
Figure 17-f:
Final discriminant (DNN) shapes in the single-lepton (SL) channel after the fit to data, in the jet-process categories with (6 jets, $\geq$3 b tags) and $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} \text {+}\text {lf}} $. The error bands include the total uncertainty after the fit to data. The first and the last bins include underflow and overflow events, respectively. The lower plot shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background plus signal distribution.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Event yields observed in data and predicted by the simulation after the selection requirements described in the text: at least four jets, at least two of which are b tagged in the single-lepton (SL) channel, and at least two jets, at least one of which is b tagged in the dilepton (DL) channel. The $ {{{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} {\mathrm {H}}} $ signal includes $ {{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}} $ and all other Higgs boson decay modes. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.

png pdf
Table 2:
Systematic uncertainties considered in the analysis, their corresponding type (affecting rate or shape of the distributions), and additional remarks.

png pdf
Table 3:
Observed and expected event yields per jet-process category (node) in the single-lepton channel with 4 jets and at least 3 b tags, prior to the fit to data (after the fit to data). The quoted uncertainties denote the total statistical and systematic components.

png pdf
Table 4:
Observed and expected event yields per jet-process category (node) in the single-lepton channel with 5 jets and at least 3 b tags, prior to the fit to data (after the fit to data). The quoted uncertainties denote the total statistical and systematic uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 5:
Observed and expected event yields per jet-process category (node) in the single-lepton channel with at least 6 jets and at least 3 b tags, prior to the fit to data (after the fit to data). The quoted uncertainties denote the total statistical and systematic uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 6:
Observed and expected event yields per jet-tag category in the dilepton channel, prior to the fit to data (after the fit to data). The quoted uncertainties denote the total statistical and systematic uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 7:
Best fit value of the signal strength modifier $\mu $ and the observed and median expected 95% CL upper limits in the single-lepton and the dilepton channels as well as the combined results. The one standard deviation confidence intervals of the expected limit and the best fit value are also quoted, split into the statistical and systematic components in the latter case.

png pdf
Table 8:
Contributions of different sources of uncertainties to the result for the fit to the data (observed) and to the expectation from simulation (expected). The quoted uncertainties $\Delta \mu $ in $\mu $ are obtained by fixing the listed sources of uncertainties to their post-fit values in the fit and subtracting the obtained result in quadrature from the result of the full fit. The statistical uncertainty is evaluated by fixing all nuisance parameters to their post-fit values. The quadratic sum of the contributions is different from the total uncertainty because of correlations between the nuisance parameters.

png pdf
Table 9:
Input variables used in the DNNs or BDTs in the different categories of the single-lepton and dilepton channels. Variables used in a specific multivariate method and analysis category are denoted by a "$+$'' and unused variables by a "$-$''. (Continued in Tables 10 and 11.)

png pdf
Table 10:
Continued from Table 9 and continued in Table 11.

png pdf
Table 11:
Continued from Table 10.

png pdf
Table 12:
Configuration of the BDTs used in the dilepton channel.
Summary
A search for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quark-antiquark pair ($ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $) is performed using pp collision data recorded with the CMS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV in 2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. Candidate events are selected in final states compatible with the Higgs boson decaying into a b quark-antiquark pair and the single-lepton and dilepton decay channels of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ system. Selected events are split into mutually exclusive categories according to their $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ decay channel and jet content. In each category a powerful discriminant is constructed to separate the $ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $ signal from the dominant ${\mathrm{t\bar{t}}}$+jets background, based on several multivariate analysis techniques (boosted decision trees, matrix element method, and deep neural networks). An observed (expected) upper limit on the $ {\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{H}} $ production cross section $\mu$ relative to the SM expectations of 1.5 (0.9) at 95% confidence level is obtained. The best fit value of $\mu$ is 0.72 $\pm$ 0.24 (stat) $\pm$ 0.38 (syst). These results correspond to an observed (expected) significance of 1.6 (2.2) standard deviations above the background-only hypothesis.
Additional Tables

png pdf
Additional Table 1:
Comparison of the sensitivity of the BDT+MEM and DNN methods using simulated data. The best-fit value of the signal strength modifier $\mu $ in the single-lepton and the dilepton channels as well as the combined results are listed, which have been obtained on Asimov data with a standard model signal injected. The one standard deviation confidence intervals are also quoted, split into the statistical and systematic components.
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 A new boson with a mass of 125 GeV observed with the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider Science 338 (2012) 1569
4 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
5 CMS Collaboration Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2017) 047 CMS-HIG-16-041
1706.09936
6 CMS Collaboration Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions NP 10 (2014) 557 CMS-HIG-13-033
1401.6527
7 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector JHEP 04 (2015) 117 1501.04943
8 CMS Collaboration Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons with the CMS detector PLB 779 (2018) 283 CMS-HIG-16-043
1708.00373
9 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for the $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{b \bar{b}} $ decay with the ATLAS detector JHEP 12 (2017) 024 1708.03299
10 CMS Collaboration Evidence for the Higgs boson decay to a bottom quark-antiquark pair Submitted to PLB CMS-HIG-16-044
1709.07497
11 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in diboson final states with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PLB 726 (2013) 88 1307.1427
12 CMS Collaboration Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV EPJC 75 (2015) 212 CMS-HIG-14-009
1412.8662
13 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for the spin-0 nature of the Higgs boson using ATLAS data PLB 726 (2013) 120 1307.1432
14 CMS Collaboration Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV PRD 92 (2015) 012004 CMS-HIG-14-018
1411.3441
15 CMS Collaboration Search for standard model production of four top quarks with same-sign and multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 78 (2018) 140 CMS-TOP-17-009
1710.10614
16 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector CERN (2016) 1610.07922
17 G. Burdman, M. Perelstein, and A. Pierce Large Hadron Collider tests of the little Higgs model PRL 90 (2003) 241802 hep-ph/0212228
18 T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath, and L.-T. Wang Phenomenology of the little Higgs model PRD 67 (2003) 095004 hep-ph/0301040
19 M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin, and A. Pierce Top quarks and electroweak symmetry breaking in little Higgs models PRD 69 (2004) 075002 hep-ph/0310039
20 H.-C. Cheng, I. Low, and L.-T. Wang Top partners in little Higgs theories with T-parity PRD 74 (2006) 055001 hep-ph/0510225
21 H.-C. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu, and C. T. Hill Electroweak symmetry breaking and extra dimensions NPB 589 (2000) 249 hep-ph/9912343
22 M. Carena, E. Ponton, J. Santiago, and C. E. M. Wagner Light Kaluza-Klein states in Randall-Sundrum models with custodial SU(2) NPB 759 (2006) 202 hep-ph/0607106
23 R. Contino, L. Da Rold, and A. Pomarol Light custodians in natural composite Higgs models PRD 75 (2007) 055014 hep-ph/0612048
24 G. Burdman and L. Da Rold Electroweak symmetry breaking from a holographic fourth generation JHEP 12 (2007) 086 0710.0623
25 C. T. Hill Topcolor: Top quark condensation in a gauge extension of the standard model PLB 266 (1991) 419
26 A. Carmona, M. Chala, and J. Santiago New Higgs production mechanism in composite Higgs models JHEP 07 (2012) 049 1205.2378
27 CMS Collaboration Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson with a top-quark pair JHEP 09 (2014) 087 CMS-HIG-13-029
1408.1682
28 ATLAS Collaboration Search for the associated production of the Higgs boson with a top quark pair in multilepton final states with the ATLAS detector PLB 749 (2015) 519 1506.05988
29 CMS Collaboration Search for a standard model Higgs boson produced in association with a top-quark pair and decaying to bottom quarks using a matrix element method EPJC 75 (2015) 251 CMS-HIG-14-010
1502.02485
30 ATLAS Collaboration Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with top quarks and decaying into $ \mathrm{b\bar{b}} $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 75 (2015) 349 1503.05066
31 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 1. inclusive observables CERN (2011) 1101.0593
32 CMS Collaboration Search for ttH production in the all-jet final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Submitted to JHEP CMS-HIG-17-022
1803.06986
33 CMS Collaboration Evidence for associated production of a Higgs boson with a top quark pair in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying $ \tau $ leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Submitted to JHEP CMS-HIG-17-018
1803.05485
34 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a top quark pair with the ATLAS detector Submitted to PRD 1712.08891
35 ATLAS Collaboration Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with top quarks and decaying into a $ \mathrm{b\bar{b}} $ pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector Submitted to PRD 1712.08895
36 T. J. Hastie, R. J. Tibshirani, and J. H. Friedman The elements of statistical learning : data mining, inference, and prediction Springer series in statistics. Springer, New York, NY, 2. ed., corr. at 10. print. edition, 2013 ISBN 978-0-387-84857-0
37 P. C. Bhat Multivariate analysis methods in particle physics Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 61 (2011) 281
38 A. Hocker et al. TMVA: Toolkit for multivariate data analysis PoS ACAT (2007) 040 physics/0703039
39 K. Kondo Dynamical likelihood method for reconstruction of events with missing momentum. 1: Method and toy models J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 57 (1988) 4126
40 D0 Collaboration A precision measurement of the mass of the top quark Nature 429 (2004) 638 hep-ex/0406031
41 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
42 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
43 GEANT4 Collaboration $ GEANT4--a $ simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
44 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
45 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
46 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
47 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
48 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
49 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
50 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
51 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
52 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
53 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
54 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
55 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
56 N. Kidonakis Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with $ \mathrm{W^-} $ or $ \mathrm{H^-} $ PRD 82 (2010) 054018 1005.4451
57 M. Aliev et al. HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR CPC 182 (2011) 1034 1007.1327
58 P. Kant et al. HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions CPC 191 (2015) 74 1406.4403
59 F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and I. Tsinikos Associated production of a top-quark pair with vector bosons at NLO in QCD: impact on $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ searches at the LHC JHEP 02 (2016) 113 1507.05640
60 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams Vector boson pair production at the LHC JHEP 07 (2011) 018 1105.0020
61 M. Cacciari et al. Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation PLB 710 (2012) 612 1111.5869
62 P. Barnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov Percent-level-precision physics at the Tevatron: next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{ q \bar{q} } \to\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\text{+X} $ PRL 109 (2012) 132001 1204.5201
63 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels JHEP 12 (2012) 054 1207.0236
64 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
65 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
66 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $ o({\alpha_s}^4) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
67 M. Czakon and A. Mitov Top++: a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders CPC 185 (2014) 2930 1112.5675
68 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV Submitted to JINST CMS-BTV-16-002
1712.07158
69 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
70 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
71 CMS Collaboration Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV JINST 7 (2012) P10002 CMS-MUO-10-004
1206.4071
72 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
73 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
74 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The catchment area of jets JHEP 04 (2008) 005 0802.1188
75 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
76 J. H. Friedman Stochastic gradient boosting Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 38 (2002) 367
77 J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart Particle swarm optimization in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on neural networks, volume 4, p. 1942 1995
78 K. El Morabit A study of the multivariate analysis of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark-antiquark pair in the boosted regime at the CMS experiment Master's thesis, Karlsruher Institut f\"ur Technologie (KIT), 2015 EKP-2016-00035
79 I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville Deep Learning MIT Press
80 CMS Collaboration Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021 CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
81 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
82 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PRL 117 (2016) 182002 1606.02625
83 CMS Collaboration Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ cross sections in association with b jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 776 (2018) 355 CMS-TOP-16-010
1705.10141
84 G. Bevilacqua, M. V. Garzelli, and A. Kardos $ \text{t}\overline{\text{t}}\text{b}\overline{\text{b}} $ hadroproduction with massive bottom quarks with PowHel 1709.06915
85 T. Jezo, J. M. Lindert, N. Moretti, and S. Pozzorini New NLOPS predictions for $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\text{+b-jet} $ production at the LHC 1802.00426
86 T. Gleisberg et al. Event generation with SHERPA 1.1 JHEP 02 (2009) 007 0811.4622
87 F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini Scattering amplitudes with Open Loops PRL 108 (2012) 111601 1111.5206
88 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Submitted to PRD CMS-TOP-17-002
1803.08856
89 R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples CPC 77 (1993) 219
90 J. S. Conway Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra in Proceedings, PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, CERN,Geneva, Switzerland 17-20 January 2011 2011 1103.0354
91 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
92 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the $ \text{CL}_{\mathrm{s}} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
93 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
94 B. Efron The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
95 J. D. Bjorken and S. J. Brodsky Statistical model for electron-positron annihilation into hadrons PRD 1 (1970) 1416
96 G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram Event shapes in $ e^{+}e^{-} $ annihilation NPB 157 (1979) 543
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN