CMSHIG19011 ; CERNEP2024179  
Measurement of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rates in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel using protonproton collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
15 July 2024  
Submitted to J. High Energy Phys.  
Abstract: An analysis of the production of a Higgs boson (H) in association with a top quarkantiquark pair ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $) or a single top quark ($ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $) is presented. The Higgs boson decay into a bottom quarkantiquark pair ($ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $) is targeted, and three different final states of the top quark decays are considered, defined by the number of leptons (electrons or muons) in the event. The analysis utilises protonproton collision data collected at the CERN LHC with the CMS experiment at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in 20162018, which correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{1}$. The observed $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ production rate relative to the standard model expectation is 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.26 $ = $ 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.17 (stat) $ \pm $ 0.21 (syst). Additionally, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ production rate is determined in intervals of Higgs boson transverse momentum. An upper limit at 95% confidence level is set on the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rate of 14.6 times the standard model prediction, with an expectation of 19.3$ ^{+9.2}_{6.0} $. Finally, constraints are derived on the strength and structure of the coupling between the Higgs boson and the top quark from simultaneous extraction of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rates, and the results are combined with those obtained in other Higgs boson decay channels.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2407.10896 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Representative leading order Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). The $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ (red) and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ (blue) denote the Higgs boson coupling strength to top quarks and vector bosons, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Representative leading order Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). The $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ (red) and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ (blue) denote the Higgs boson coupling strength to top quarks and vector bosons, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Representative leading order Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). The $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ (red) and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ (blue) denote the Higgs boson coupling strength to top quarks and vector bosons, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
Representative leading order Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). The $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ (red) and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ (blue) denote the Higgs boson coupling strength to top quarks and vector bosons, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD multijet background prediction is taken from simulation. The different $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ background contributions ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{LF} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $) are discussed in Section 7. The expected $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD multijet background prediction is taken from simulation. The different $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ background contributions ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{LF} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $) are discussed in Section 7. The expected $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD multijet background prediction is taken from simulation. The different $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ background contributions ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{LF} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $) are discussed in Section 7. The expected $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD multijet background prediction is taken from simulation. The different $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ background contributions ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{LF} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $) are discussed in Section 7. The expected $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3d:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3e:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3f:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with the reconstruction BDT for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ hypothesis (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4e:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4f:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as the pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. Where applicable, the last bin in each distribution includes the overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Illustration of the analysis strategy for the inclusive $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rate, coupling, and $ C\hspace{.08em}P $ measurements (upper), and for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ STXS measurement (lower). The procedure is applied separately for the three years of data taking. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Illustration of the analysis strategy for the inclusive $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rate, coupling, and $ C\hspace{.08em}P $ measurements (upper), and for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ STXS measurement (lower). The procedure is applied separately for the three years of data taking. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Illustration of the analysis strategy for the inclusive $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rate, coupling, and $ C\hspace{.08em}P $ measurements (upper), and for the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ STXS measurement (lower). The procedure is applied separately for the three years of data taking. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6d:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6e:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6f:
Categorisation efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 7c:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Best fit results $ \hat{\mu} $ of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signalstrength modifier $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in each channel (upper three rows), in each year (middle three rows), and in the combination of all channels and years (lower row). Uncertainties are correlated between the channels and years. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Observed likelihoodratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signalstrength modifier $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ and the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ background normalisation, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) best fit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions. The $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $ background normalisation and all other nuisance parameters are profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Postfit values of the nuisance parameters (black markers), shown as the difference of their best fit values, $ \hat{\theta} $, and prefit values, $ \theta_{0} $, relative to the prefit uncertainties $ \Delta\theta $. The impact $ \Delta\hat{\mu} $ of the nuisance parameters on the signal strength $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ 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 postfit uncertainty (coloured areas). The nuisance parameters are ordered by their impact, and only the 20 highest ranked parameters are shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The vertical dashed lines separate the STXS categories (labelled 1 to 5). The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5) in each $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The vertical dashed lines separate the STXS categories (labelled 1 to 5). The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5) in each $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The vertical dashed lines separate the STXS categories (labelled 1 to 5). The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5) in each $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 11c:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The vertical dashed lines separate the STXS categories (labelled 1 to 5). The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5) in each $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Best fit results $ \hat{\mu} $ of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bins (left) and their correlations (right) of the STXS measurement. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Best fit results $ \hat{\mu} $ of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bins (left) and their correlations (right) of the STXS measurement. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Best fit results $ \hat{\mu} $ of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{H}} $ bins (left) and their correlations (right) of the STXS measurement. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Observed (solid vertical line) and expected (dashed vertical line) upper 95% CL limit on the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ signal strength modifier $ \mu_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H}} $ for different channels and years, where the uncertainties are uncorrelated between the channels and years, and in their combination. The green (yellow) areas indicate the one (two) standard deviation confidence intervals on the expected limit. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Observed likelihoodratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ signal strength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) best fit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) best fit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) values of the likelihood ratio for $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}}= $ 1 are also shown (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 15a:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) best fit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) values of the likelihood ratio for $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}}= $ 1 are also shown (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 15b:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) best fit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) values of the likelihood ratio for $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}}= $ 1 are also shown (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}} $, where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}}= $ 1, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) best fit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (region between dashed lines) CL regions. 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
Observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 17a:
Observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 17b:
Observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 18:
Observed 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions of the likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}} $, where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}}= $ 1, and best fit values (crosses), for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel (blue), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ channels (cyan), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\tau\tau $ channels (green), and for the combination of all channels (red). The SM expected CL regions (black lines) and best fit values (black diamonds) are superimposed. 
png pdf 
Figure 19:
Observed (solid lines) and expected (dotted lines) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel (blue), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ channels (cyan), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\tau\tau $ channels (green), and for the combination of all channels (red). 
png pdf 
Figure 19a:
Observed (solid lines) and expected (dotted lines) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel (blue), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ channels (cyan), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\tau\tau $ channels (green), and for the combination of all channels (red). 
png pdf 
Figure 19b:
Observed (solid lines) and expected (dotted lines) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\mathrm{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{\widetilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane, for the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel (blue), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ channels (cyan), the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ and $ \mathrm{H}\to\tau\tau $ channels (green), and for the combination of all channels (red). 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Trigger selection criteria in the fully hadronic (FH) channel. Multiple criteria, each represented by one row, are used per year and combined with a logical OR. In the case of the fourjet trigger, the minimum jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ is different for each jet and separated by a slash (/). 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Trigger selection criteria in the singlelepton (SL) channel. Multiple criteria per lepton flavour, each represented by one row, are used per year and combined with a logical OR. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Trigger selection criteria in the dilepton (DL) channel. Multiple criteria per lepton flavour, each represented by one row, are used per year and combined with a logical OR. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
Generator version and configuration of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ samples. The parameters \mit and \mib denote the top quark and bottom quark mass, respectively, \mtit, \mtib, and \mti$ \mathrm{g} $ the transverse mass of the top quark, the bottom quark, and additional gluons, respectively, and $ h_{\text{damp}} $ the parton shower matching scale. 
png pdf 
Table 5:
Baseline selection criteria in the fully hadronic (FH), singlelepton (SL), and dilepton (DL) channels based on the observables defined in the text. Leptons and jets are ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $. The $ \ast $ indicates that the requirement is only applied to the sameflavour DL channels. Where the criteria differ per year of data taking, they are quoted as three values, corresponding to 2016/2017/2018, respectively. 
png pdf 
Table 6:
Observables used as input variables to the primary ANNs ($ \times $) and STXS ANNs ($ \circ $) per channel. Categories are labelled as ``$ < $(min.) number jets$ >< $min.\ number btagged jets$ > $'', $ \mbox{e.g.} $ the FH ($ \geq $9\,jets, $ \geq $4\,b\,tags) category is labelled as ``94''. The $ \dagger $ indicates that the observable is constructed using information from the BDTbased event reconstruction. 
png pdf 
Table 7:
Categorisation scheme in the FH channel, applied independently in each jetmultiplicity category. The \mi$ \mathrm{q} \mathrm{q} $ selection criteria refer to events with 7 or 8 ($ \geq $9) jets. 
png pdf 
Table 8:
Systematic uncertainties considered in the analysis. ``Type'' refers to rate (R) or rate and shape (S) altering uncertainties. ``Correlation'' indicates whether the uncertainty is treated as correlated, partially correlated (as detailed in the text), or uncorrelated across the years 201618. Uncertainties for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ events marked with a $ ^{\dagger} $ are treated as partially correlated between each of the STXS categories and the other categories in the STXS analysis. 
png pdf 
Table 9:
Contributions of different sources of uncertainty to the result for the fit to the data (observed) and to the expectation from simulation (expected). The quoted uncertainties $ \Delta\mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ are obtained by fixing the listed sources of uncertainties to their postfit 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 postfit values and repeating the fit. The quadratic sum of the contributions is different from the total uncertainty because of correlations between the nuisance parameters. 
Summary 
A combined analysis of the associated production of a Higgs boson (H) with a top quarkantiquark pair ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $) or a single top quark ($ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $) with the Higgs boson decaying into a bottom quarkantiquark pair has been presented. The analysis has been performed using proton proton collision data recorded with the CMS detector at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{1}$. Candidate events are selected in mutually exclusive categories according to the lepton and jet multiplicity, targeting three different final states of the top quark decays. Neural network discriminants are used to further categorise the events according to the most probable process, targeting the signal and different topologies of the dominant $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ background, as well as to separate the signal from the background. Compared to previous CMS results in this channel, which were obtained with an approximately four times smaller dataset, several refinements of the analysis strategy as well as modelling of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\text{jets} $ background based on stateofthe art $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ simulations have been adopted. Furthermore, an extended set of interpretations is performed, including the first analysis within the simplified template cross section (STXS) framework and the first analysis of the $ C\hspace{.08em}P $ structure of the topHiggs coupling in this channel by the CMS Collaboration. A best fit value of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ production cross section relative to the standard model (SM) expectation of 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.26 $ = $ 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.17 (stat) $ \pm $ 0.21 (syst) is obtained. The result is compatible with the value reported by the ATLAS Collaboration [11]. The observed rate of the dominant background from $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production is larger than predicted, in agreement with dedicated measurements of the process [85], and the results motivate further studies of $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production. The analysis is additionally performed within the STXS framework in five intervals of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, probing potential $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ dependent deviations from the SM expectation. An observed (expected) upper limit on the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production cross section relative to the SM expectation of 14.6 (19.3) at 95% confidence level (CL) is derived. Information on the Higgs boson coupling strength is furthermore inferred from a simultaneous fit of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production rates, probing either the coupling strength of the Higgs boson to top quarks and to heavy vector bosons, or possible $ C\hspace{.08em}P $odd admixtures in the coupling between the Higgs boson and top quarks. The results on the $ C\hspace{.08em}P $ nature of the coupling are combined with those from measurements in other Higgs boson decay channels, constraining the $ C\hspace{.08em}P $odd fraction $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} $ to $ f_{C\hspace{.08em}P} < $ 0.85 and the $ C\hspace{.08em}P $ mixing angle $ \cos\alpha $ to $ \cos\alpha > $ 0.39 at 95% CL. 
References  
1  S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch  The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the electroweak vacuum  PLB 716 (2012) 214  1207.0980 
2  B. A. Dobrescu and C. T. Hill  Electroweak symmetry breaking via top condensation seesaw  PRL 81 (1998) 2634  hepph/9712319 
3  R. S. Chivukula, B. A. Dobrescu, H. Georgi, and C. T. Hill  Top quark seesaw theory of electroweak symmetry breaking  PRD 59 (1999) 075003  hepph/9809470 
4  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector  PLB 784 (2018) 159  1806.00425 
5  CMS Collaboration  Observation of $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production  PRL 120 (2018) 231801  CMSHIG17035 1804.02610 
6  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the properties of Higgs boson production at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ channel using 139 fb$ ^{1} $ of pp collision data with the ATLAS experiment  JHEP 07 (2023) 088  2207.00348 
7  ATLAS Collaboration  $ CP $ properties of Higgs boson interactions with top quarks in the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ processes using $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ with the ATLAS detector  PRL 125 (2020) 061802  2004.04545 
8  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production and the CP structure of the Yukawa interaction between the Higgs boson and top quark in the diphoton decay channel  PRL 125 (2020) 061801  CMSHIG19013 2003.10866 
9  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2021) 027  CMSHIG19015 2103.06956 
10  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 81 (2021) 378  CMSHIG19008 2011.03652 
11  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of Higgs boson decay into bquarks in associated production with a topquark pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 06 (2022) 097  2111.06712 
12  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel with leptonic $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ decays in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 03 (2019) 026  CMSHIG17026 1804.03682 
13  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production in the alljet final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 06 (2018) 101  CMSHIG17022 1803.06986 
14  F. Maltoni, K. Paul, T. Stelzer, and S. Willenbrock  Associated production of Higgs and single top at hadron colliders  PRD 64 (2001) 094023  hepph/0106293 
15  M. Farina et al.  Lifting degeneracies in Higgs couplings using single top production in association with a Higgs boson  JHEP 05 (2013) 022  1211.3736 
16  P. Agrawal, S. Mitra, and A. Shivaji  Effect of anomalous couplings on the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson at the LHC  JHEP 12 (2013) 077  1211.4362 
17  F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and M. Zaro  Higgs production in association with a single top quark at the LHC  EPJC 75 (2015) 267  1504.00611 
18  CMS Collaboration  Search for associated production of a Higgs boson and a single top quark in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD 99 (2019) 092005  CMSHIG18009 1811.09696 
19  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector  1610.07922  
20  ATLAS Collaboration  Probing the $ CP $ nature of the topHiggs Yukawa coupling in $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ events with $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decays using the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PLB 849 (2024) 138469  2303.05974 
21  CMS Collaboration  HEPData record for this analysis  link  
22  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
23  CMS Tracker Group Collaboration  The CMS phase1 pixel detector upgrade  JINST 16 (2021) P02027  2012.14304 
24  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
25  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
26  CMS Collaboration  Precision luminosity measurement in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS  EPJC 81 (2021) 800  CMSLUM17003 2104.01927 
27  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMSPASLUM17004 
CMSPASLUM17004 
28  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
29  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS muon trigger system in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 16 (2021) P07001  CMSMUO19001 2102.04790 
30  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
31  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
32  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
33  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
34  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 
35  T. Ježo and P. Nason  On the treatment of resonances in nexttoleading order calculations matched to a parton shower  JHEP 12 (2015) 065  1509.09071 
36  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 
37  J. Alwall et al.  The automated computation of treelevel and nexttoleading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations  JHEP 07 (2014) 079  1405.0301 
38  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
39  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
40  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC Run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
41  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA 8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
42  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016) 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
43  F. Maltoni, G. Ridolfi, and M. Ubiali  binitiated processes at the LHC: a reappraisal  JHEP 07 (2012) 022  1203.6393 
44  F. Demartin et al.  $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{H} $ associated production at the LHC  EPJC 77 (2017) 34  1607.05862 
45  J. S. Gainer et al.  Exploring theory space with Monte Carlo reweighting  JHEP 10 (2014) 078  1404.7129 
46  O. Mattelaer  On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: reweighting events at NLO accuracy  EPJC 76 (2016) 674  1607.00763 
47  T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert, N. Moretti, and S. Pozzorini  New NLOPS predictions for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}+\mathrm{b} $jet production at the LHC  EPJC 78 (2018) 502  1802.00426 
48  F. Buccioni et al.  OpenLoops 2  EPJC 79 (2019) 866  1907.13071 
49  F. Cascioli et al.  NLO matching for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production with massive bquarks  PLB 734 (2014) 210  1309.5912 
50  F. Buccioni, S. Kallweit, S. Pozzorini, and M. F. Zoller  NLO QCD predictions for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production in association with a light jet at the LHC  JHEP 12 (2019) 015  1907.13624 
51  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  NLO singletop production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $ and $ t $channel contributions  JHEP 09 (2009) 111  0907.4076 
52  R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli  Singletop $ t $channel hadroproduction in the fourflavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO  JHEP 09 (2012) 130  1207.5391 
53  E. Re  Singletop $ {\mathrm{W}}{\mathrm{t}} $channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method  EPJC 71 (2011) 1547  1009.2450 
54  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
55  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 
56  CMS Collaboration  A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel  PLB 805 (2020) 135425  CMSHIG19004 2002.06398 
57  M. Cacciari et al.  Toppair production at hadron colliders with nexttonexttoleading logarithmic softgluon resummation  PLB 710 (2012) 612  1111.5869 
58  P. B ä rnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov  Percentlevelprecision physics at the Tevatron: nexttonexttoleading order QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\to\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\text{+X} $  PRL 109 (2012) 132001  1204.5201 
59  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  NNLO corrections to toppair production at hadron colliders: the allfermionic scattering channels  JHEP 12 (2012) 054  1207.0236 
60  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quarkgluon reaction  JHEP 01 (2013) 080  1210.6832 
61  M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn  Hadronic topquark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation  NPB 855 (2012) 695  1109.1536 
62  M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov  Total topquark pairproduction cross section at hadron colliders through $ \mathcal{O}({\alpha_s}^4) $  PRL 110 (2013) 252004  1303.6254 
63  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  Top++: a program for the calculation of the toppair crosssection at hadron colliders  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930  1112.5675 
64  N. Kidonakis  Twoloop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with $ \mathrm{W^} $ or $ \mathrm{H}^{} $  PRD 82 (2010) 054018  1005.4451 
65  M. Aliev et al.  HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR  Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 1034  1007.1327 
66  P. Kant et al.  HatHor for single topquark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single topquark production in hadronic collisions  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74  1406.4403 
67  F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and I. Tsinikos  Associated production of a topquark 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 
68  J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams  Vector boson pair production at the LHC  JHEP 07 (2011) 018  1105.0020 
69  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
70  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
71  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the phase2 upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

72  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P06015  CMSMUO16001 1804.04528 
73  CMS Collaboration  ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots  CMS Detector Performance Summary CMSDP2020021, 2020 CDS 

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  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The catchment area of jets  JHEP 04 (2008) 005  0802.1188 
77  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
78  CMS Collaboration  Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMSPASJME16003 
CMSPASJME16003 
79  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 1712.07158 
80  E. Bols et al.  Jet flavour classification using DeepJet  JINST 15 (2020) P12012  2008.10519 
81  CMS Collaboration  Btagging performance of the CMS legacy dataset 2018  CMS Detector Performance Summary CMSDP2021004, 2021 CDS 

82  CMS Collaboration  Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector  JINST 14 (2019) P07004  CMSJME17001 1903.06078 
83  K. Kondo  Dynamical likelihood method for reconstruction of events with missing momentum. 1: Method and toy models  J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 57 (1988) 4126  
84  CMS Collaboration  Search for a standard model Higgs boson produced in association with a topquark pair and decaying to bottom quarks using a matrix element method  EPJC 75 (2015) 251  CMSHIG14010 1502.02485 
85  CMS Collaboration  Inclusive and differential cross section measurements of $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production in the lepton+jets channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 05 (2024) 042  CMSTOP22009 2309.14442 
86  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the cross section for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with additional jets and b jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2020) 125  CMSTOP18002 2003.06467 
87  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production cross section in the alljet final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 803 (2020) 135285  CMSTOP18011 1909.05306 
88  CMS Collaboration  Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level  CMSNOTE2017004, 2017 CDS 

89  CMS Collaboration  The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine  Submitted to Comput. Softw. Big Sci, 2024  CMSCAT23001 2404.06614 
90  J. S. Conway  Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra  in PHYSTAT 2011 link 
1103.0354 
91  F. Chollet et al.  Keras  https://keras.io  
92  M. Erdmann, J. Glombitza, G. Kasieczka, and U. Klemradt  Deep Learning for Physics Research  WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2021 link 

93  S. Jasper, L. Hugo, and P. A. Ryan  Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms  1206.2944  
94  F. Luca, D. Michele, F. Paolo, and P. Massimiliano  Forward and reverse gradientbased hyperparameter optimization  in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, D. Precup and Y. W. Teh, eds., volume 70 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, 2017 link 

95  G. E. Hinton et al.  Improving neural networks by preventing coadaptation of feature detectors  1207.0580  
96  S. Wunsch, R. Friese, R. Wolf, and G. Quast  Identifying the relevant dependencies of the neural network response on characteristics of the input space  Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 2 (2018) 5  1803.08782 
97  A. Ghorbani and J. Zou  Data Shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learning  1904.02868  
98  J. D. Bjorken and S. J. Brodsky  Statistical model for electronpositron annihilation into hadrons  PRD 1 (1970) 1416  
99  G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram  Event shapes in $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^ $ annihilation  NPB 157 (1979) 543  
100  I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville  Deep Learning  MIT Press, 2016 link 

101  J. K. Lindsey  Parametric statistical inference  Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1996  
102  P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo  Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune  EPJC 74 (2014) 3024  1404.5630 
103  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  PRD 97 (2018) 112003  CMSTOP17002 1803.08856 
104  I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann  Theory uncertainties for Higgs and other searches using jet bins  PRD 85 (2012) 034011  1107.2117 
105  ATLAS Collaboration  Evaluation of QCD uncertainties for Higgs boson production through gluon fusion and in association with two top quarks for simplified template crosssection measurements  ATLPHYSPUB2023031, 2023  
106  R. Barlow and C. Beeston  Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples  Comp. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219  
107  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production with additional charm jets using dileptonic final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 820 (2021) 136565  CMSTOP20003 2012.09225 
108  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties  1307.1347  
109  A. V. Gritsan, R. Röntsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao  Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques  PRD 94 (2016) 055023  1606.03107 
110  F. Demartin et al.  Higgs characterisation at NLO in QCD: CP properties of the topquark Yukawa interaction  EPJC 74 (2014) 3065  1407.5089 
111  CMS Collaboration  Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions in its production and decay using the fourlepton final state  PRD 104 (2021) 052004  CMSHIG19009 2104.12152 
112  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ CP $ violation in $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production in multilepton channels in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2023) 092  CMSHIG21006 2208.02686 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 