CMSHIG20002 ; CERNEP2024088  
Search for a standard modellike Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
28 May 2024  
Accepted for publication in Phys. Lett. B  
Abstract: The results of a search for a standard modellike Higgs boson decaying into two photons in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV are presented. The analysis uses the data set collected by the CMS experiment in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV corresponding to integrated luminosities of 36.3 fb$ ^{1} $, 41.5 fb$ ^{1} $ and 54.4 fb$ ^{1} $ during the 2016, 2017, and 2018 LHC running periods, respectively. No significant excess over the background expectation is observed and 95% confidence level upper limits are set on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for decays of an additional Higgs boson into two photons. The maximum deviation with respect to the background is seen for a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV with a local (global) significance of 2.9 (1.3) standard deviations. The observed upper limit ranges from 15 to 73 fb.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2405.18149 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures & Tables  Summary  Additional Figures  References  CMS Publications 

Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Full parametrized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV for 2016 (upper left), 2017 (upper right), and 2018 (lower). The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ values and the shaded region limited by $ {\pm}\sigma_{\text{eff}} $, along with the FWHM values, indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Full parametrized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV for 2016 (upper left), 2017 (upper right), and 2018 (lower). The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ values and the shaded region limited by $ {\pm}\sigma_{\text{eff}} $, along with the FWHM values, indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Full parametrized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV for 2016 (upper left), 2017 (upper right), and 2018 (lower). The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ values and the shaded region limited by $ {\pm}\sigma_{\text{eff}} $, along with the FWHM values, indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
Full parametrized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV for 2016 (upper left), 2017 (upper right), and 2018 (lower). The open points are the weighted MC events and the blue lines the corresponding parametric models. Also shown are the $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ values and the shaded region limited by $ {\pm}\sigma_{\text{eff}} $, along with the FWHM values, indicated by the position of the arrows on each distribution. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2016 data in the three event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2016 data in the three event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2016 data in the three event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2016 data in the three event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2017 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2017 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2017 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2017 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 3d:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2017 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2018 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2018 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2018 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2018 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Background model fits using the chosen background model parametrization to the 2018 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class and $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV, multiplied by 10, is also shown. The one and two$ \sigma $ bands reflect the uncertainty in the background model normalization associated with the statistical uncertainties of the fits, and are shown for illustration purposes only. The difference between the data and the background model is shown in the lower panels. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ {\pm}$1$\sigma $ and $ {\pm}$2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The limit is shown relative to the expected SMlike value (left). The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty [67] (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ {\pm}$1$\sigma $ and $ {\pm}$2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The limit is shown relative to the expected SMlike value (left). The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty [67] (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ {\pm}$1$\sigma $ and $ {\pm}$2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The limit is shown relative to the expected SMlike value (left). The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty [67] (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, for the ggH plus $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ (upper left) and VBF plus VH (upper right) processes, and assuming 100% production via the VBF (lower left) or VH (lower right) processes, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1$\sigma $ and $ \pm $2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, for the ggH plus $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ (upper left) and VBF plus VH (upper right) processes, and assuming 100% production via the VBF (lower left) or VH (lower right) processes, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1$\sigma $ and $ \pm $2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, for the ggH plus $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ (upper left) and VBF plus VH (upper right) processes, and assuming 100% production via the VBF (lower left) or VH (lower right) processes, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1$\sigma $ and $ \pm $2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, for the ggH plus $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ (upper left) and VBF plus VH (upper right) processes, and assuming 100% production via the VBF (lower left) or VH (lower right) processes, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1$\sigma $ and $ \pm $2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6d:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, for the ggH plus $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ (upper left) and VBF plus VH (upper right) processes, and assuming 100% production via the VBF (lower left) or VH (lower right) processes, from the statistical combination of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data sets. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1$\sigma $ and $ \pm $2$\sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
The observed local $ p $values for an additional SMlike Higgs boson as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{H}} $, from the analysis of the data from 2016, 2017, 2018, and their combination. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Families and orders of functions chosen as best fit when summed with the DCB + exponential function, by year and by event class, in the case of backgroundonly fits. The DCB + exponential fractions for these models in the range 85 $ < m_{\gamma\gamma} < $ 95 GeV are also shown. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
The expected number of SMlike Higgs boson signal events ($ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV) per event class and the corresponding percentage breakdown per production process, for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 data. The values of $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ and $ \sigma_{\text{HM}} $ are also shown, along with the number of background events (``Bkg.'') per GeV estimated from the backgroundonly fit to the data, that includes the number, shown separately, from the DY process (``DY Bkg.''), in a $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ window centered on $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 90 GeV. 
Summary 
A search for an additional, SMlike, lowmass Higgs boson decaying into two photons has been presented. It is based upon data samples corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 132 fb$ ^{1} $ collected in pp collisions at a centerofmass energy of 13 TeV in 20162018. The search is performed in a mass range between 70 and 110 GeV. The expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson as well as the expected and observed local $ p $values are presented. The observed upper limit on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction for the full data set ranges from 15 to 73 fb. The results of the statistical combination of the analyses of the three data sets show no significant excess over the background expectation. The maximum deviation with respect to the background is seen for a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV with a local (global) significance of 2.9 (1.3) standard deviations. 
Additional Figures  
png pdf 
Additional Figure 1:
Signal efficiency $ \times $ acceptance for the analysis of the 2016 data set, as a function of mass hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 2:
Signal efficiency $ \times $ acceptance for the analysis of the 2017 data set, as a function of mass hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 3:
Signal efficiency $ \times $ acceptance for the analysis of the 2018 data set, as a function of mass hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 4:
Distributions of the variable $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) $ for simulated surviving DrellYan events (red) and simulated signal events corresponding to an SMlike Higgs boson with $ m_{H} $ = 90 GeV produced via the ggH process (black), with both distributions normalized to 1, for the analysis of the 2018 data set. The events are required to have survived the analysis preselection, the pixel detectorbased electron veto, and have diphoton BDT classifier values greater than 0.364. This variable, corresponding to the natural logarithm of the sum of the squares of transverse momenta of all tracks associated with the chosen diphoton vertex, is used to suppress the surviving DrellYan background. For the simulated DrellYan events, the peak at $ \sim $8.3 reflects the contributions of the two electron tracks, while the peak at $ \sim $7.6 that of one electron track, the other either being out of the detector acceptance or not reconstructed due to significant bremsstrahlung. The peak at $ \sim $5 corresponds to the case where neither of the electron tracks is reconstructed, similar to that of signal events where the main contributions are from tracks from pileup and the underlying event. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 5:
Twodimensional distribution of $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) $ versus diphoton transverse momentum ($ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma}/\mathrm{GeV} $) for simulated signal events corresponding to an SMlike Higgs boson with $ m_{H} $ = 90 GeV produced via the ggH process, with the distribution normalized to 1, for the analysis of the 2018 data set. The events are required to have survived the analysis preselection, the pixel detectorbased electron veto, and have diphoton BDT classifier values greater than 0.364. The upper limit on $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) $, $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) = 0.016p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma}/\mathrm{GeV} + $ 6.0, is shown as the white line. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 6:
Twodimensional distribution of $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) $ versus diphoton transverse momentum ($ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma}/\mathrm{GeV} $) for simulated surviving DrellYan events, with the distribution normalized to 1, for the analysis of the 2018 data set. The events are required to have survived the analysis preselection, the pixel detectorbased electron veto, and have diphoton BDT classifier values greater than 0.364. The upper limit on $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) $, $\ln(\Sigma p_{\mathrm{T}}^{2}/\mathrm{GeV}^{2}) = 0.016p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma\gamma}/\mathrm{GeV} + $ 6.0, is shown as the white line. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 7:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons relative to the value expected for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the 2016 data set. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 8:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the 2016 data set. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 9:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons relative to the value expected for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the 2017 data set. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 10:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the 2017 data set. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons relative to the value expected for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the 2018 data set. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the 2018 data set. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 13:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SMlike Higgs boson, from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017, and 2018. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical predictions for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons are shown as a solid blue line with a hatched red band indicating its uncertainty for an additional SMlike Higgs boson ($ \sigma_{SM} \times B $), and a solid red line with a hatched blue band indicating its uncertainty for a Higgs boson in the Fermiophobic model $ (\sigma \times B)_{FP} $. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 14:
Values of the signal strength $ \widehat{\mu} $ measured individually for the eleven event classes in the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017, and 2018, and the overall combined value, with $ m_H $ fixed to that of the largest local pvalue excess. The horizontal bars indicate $ \pm 1\sigma $ uncertainties in the values, and the vertical line and band indicate the value of the combined $ \widehat{\mu} $ in the fit to the data and its uncertainty. The $ \chi^2 $ probability of the values for the eleven event classes being compatible with the overall bestfit signal strength is 68%. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 15:
Values of the signal strength $ \widehat{\mu} $ measured individually for each year, and the overall combined value, with $ m_H $ fixed to that of the largest local pvalue excess. The horizontal bars indicate $ \pm 1\sigma $ uncertainties in the values, and the vertical line and band indicate the value of the combined $ \widehat{\mu} $ in the fit to the data and its uncertainty. The $ \chi^2 $ probability of the values for the three years being compatible with the overall bestfit signal strength is 6%. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 16:
Events in all classes of the combined 13$ \mathrm{TeV} $ data set, binned as a function of $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $, together with the result of a fit of the signalplusbackground model, under a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV. The one and two$ \sigma $ uncertainty bands shown for the background component of the fit include the uncertainty due to the choice of fit function and the uncertainty in the fitted parameters. The distribution of the residual data after subtracting the fitted background component is shown in the lower panel. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 17:
Events in all classes of the combined 13 TeV data set, binned as a function of $ m_{\gamma\gamma} $, together with the result of a fit of the signalplusbackground model, under a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV. Each event is weighted by the ratio S/(S+B) for its event class, where S and B are the numbers of expected signal and background events, respectively, in a $ \pm 1\sigma_{\text{eff}} m_{\gamma\gamma} $ window centred on $ m_{\mathrm{H}} $. The one and two$ \sigma $ uncertainty bands shown for the background component of the fit include the uncertainty due to the choice of fit function and the uncertainty in the fitted parameters. The distribution of the residual weighted data after subtracting the fitted background component is shown in the lower panel. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 18:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f \times (\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.1, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 17 to 82 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 19:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.2, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 16 to 80 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 20:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.3, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 16 to 79 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 21:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.4, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 16 to 77 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 22:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.5, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 15 to 74 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 23:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.6, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 14 to 70 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 24:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.7, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 13 to 64 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 25:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.8, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 12 to 56 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 26:
Expected and observed exclusion limits (95% CL, in the asymptotic approximation) on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction into two photons, for an additional Higgs boson from the analysis of the combined data from 2016, 2017 and 2018, with assumption of the total cross section $ \sigma = (1f)\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}) + f\times(\sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} + \sigma_{SM}^{VBF}) $ with the additional parameter $ f $ = 0.9, where $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $, $ \sigma_{SM}^{\mathrm{V}\mathrm{H}} $ and $ \sigma_{SM}^{VBF} $ are the SMlike cross sections of the ggH, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, VH and VBF production modes. The inner and outer bands indicate the regions containing the distribution of limits located within $ \pm $1 and 2$ \sigma $, respectively, of the expectation under the backgroundonly hypothesis. The observed upper limit ranges from 10 to 45 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 27:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 70 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.22, 0.20). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 28:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 75 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.14, 0.22). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 29:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 80 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.0, 0.0). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 30:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 85 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.0, 0.0). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 31:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 90 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.28, 0.0). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 32:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 95.4 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.47, 0.05). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 33:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 100 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.0, 0.39). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 34:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 105 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.03, 0.0). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 35:
Maximum likelihood estimates, and 68 and 95% confidence level contours obtained from scans of the signal likelihood as a function of $ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $ versus $ \mu_{VBF} $ for $ m_{H} $ = 110 GeV, when considering only ggH and VBF production modes. The bestfit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.0, 0.0). 
References  
1  S. L. Glashow  Partialsymmetries of weak interactions  NP 22 (1961) 579  
2  S. Weinberg  A model of leptons  PRL 19 (1967) 1264  
3  A. Salam  Weak and electromagnetic interactions  in Elementary particle physics: relativistic groups and analyticity, N. Svartholm, ed., Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, Proceedings of the eighth Nobel symposium, 1968  
4  F. Englert and R. Brout  Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons  PRL 13 (1964) 321  
5  P. W. Higgs  Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields  PL 12 (1964) 132  
6  P. W. Higgs  Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons  PRL 13 (1964) 508  
7  G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble  Global conservation laws and massless particles  PRL 13 (1964) 585  
8  P. W. Higgs  Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons  PR 145 (1966) 1156  
9  T. W. B. Kibble  Symmetry breaking in nonAbelian gauge theories  PR 155 (1967) 1554  
10  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 
11  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC  PLB 716 (2012) 30  CMSHIG12028 1207.7235 
12  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 06 (2013) 081  CMSHIG12036 1303.4571 
13  ATLAS Collaboration  A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 52  2207.00092 
14  CMS Collaboration  A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 60  CMSHIG22001 2207.00043 
15  A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich  LHC constraints on twoHiggsdoublet models  JHEP 07 (2013) 053  1302.4022 
16  B. Coleppa, F. Kling, and S. Su  Constraining type II 2HDM in light of LHC Higgs searches  JHEP 01 (2014) 161  1305.0002 
17  S. Chang et al.  TwoHiggsdoublet models for the LHC Higgs boson data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 09 (2014) 101  1310.3374 
18  J. Bernon et al.  Scrutinizing the alignment limit in twoHiggsdoublet models. II. $ m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 125 GeV  PRD 93 (2016) 035027  1511.03682 
19  G. Cacciapaglia et al.  Search for a lighter Higgs boson in twoHiggsdoublet models  JHEP 12 (2016) 68  1607.08653 
20  P. Fayet  Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino  NPB 90 (1975) 104  
21  R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy  Gauge models with spontaneously broken local supersymmetry  PLB 119 (1982) 343  
22  M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki  A simple solution to the strong CP problem with a harmless axion  PLB 104 (1981) 199  
23  H. P. Nilles, M. Srednicki, and D. Wyler  Weak interaction breakdown induced by supergravity  PLB 120 (1983) 346  
24  J. M. Frère, D. R. T. Jones, and S. Raby  Fermion masses and induction of the weak scale by supergravity  NPB 222 (1983) 11  
25  J. P. Derendinger and C. A. Savoy  Quantum effects and SU(2) x U(1) breaking in supergravity gauge theories  NPB 237 (1984) 307  
26  J. Ellis et al.  Higgs bosons in a nonminimal supersymmetric model  PRD 39 (1989) 844  
27  M. Drees  Supersymmetric models with extended Higgs sector  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4 (1989) 3635  
28  U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy  Particle spectrum in supersymmetric models with a gauge singlet  PLB 315 (1993) 331  hepph/9307322 
29  U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy  Higgs phenomenology of the supersymmetric model with a gauge singlet  Z. Phys. C 67 (1995) 665  hepph/9502206 
30  U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy  Phenomenology of supersymmetric models with a singlet  NPB 492 (1997) 21  hepph/9611251 
31  T. Elliott, S. F. King, and P. L. White  Unification constraints in the nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  PLB 351 (1995) 213  hepph/9406303 
32  S. F. King and P. L. White  Resolving the constrained minimal and nexttominimal supersymmetric standard models  PRD 52 (1995) 4183  hepph/9505326 
33  F. Franke  Neutralinos and Higgs bosons in the nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 479  hepph/9512366 
34  M. Maniatis  The nexttominimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model reviewed  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 3505  0906.0777 
35  U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira  The nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  Phys. Rept. 496 (2010) 1  0910.1785 
36  J.W. Fan et al.  Study of diphoton decays of the lightest scalar Higgs boson in the nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  Chin. Phys. C 38 (2014) 073101  1309.6394 
37  U. Ellwanger and M. RodriguezVazquez  Discovery prospects of a light scalar in the NMSSM  JHEP 02 (2016) 096  1512.04281 
38  M. Guchait and J. Kumar  Diphoton signal of light pseudoscalar in NMSSM at the LHC  PRD 95 (2017) 035036  1608.05693 
39  J. Cao et al.  Diphoton signal of the light Higgs boson in natural NMSSM  PRD 95 (2017) 116001  1612.08522 
40  J.Q. Tao et al.  Search for a lighter Higgs boson in the nexttominimal supersymmetric standard model  Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 103107  1805.11438 
41  H. Georgi and M. Machacek  Doublycharged Higgs bosons  NPB 262 (1985) 463  
42  H. E. Logan and V. Rentala  All the generalized GeorgiMachacek models  PRD 92 (2015) 075011  1502.01275 
43  A. Ismail, B. Keeshan, H. E. Logan, and Y. Wu  Benchmark for LHC searches for lowmass custodial fiveplet scalars in the GeorgiMachacek model  PRD 103 (2021) 095010  2003.05536 
44  C. Wang et al.  Search for a lighter neutral custodial fiveplet scalar in the GeorgiMachacek model  Chin. Phys. C 46 (2022) 083107  2204.09198 
45  ALEPH Collaboration, DELPHI Collaboration, L3 Collaboration, OPAL Collaboration and the LEP working group for Higgs boson searches  Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP  PLB 565 (2003) 61  hepex/0306033 
46  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for scalar diphoton resonances in the mass range 65600 GeV with the ATLAS detector in pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV  PRL 113 (2014) 171801  1407.6583 
47  CMS Collaboration  Search for a standard modellike Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV  PLB 793 (2019) 320  CMSHIG17013 1811.08459 
48  CMS Collaboration  HEPData record for this analysis  link  
49  CMS Collaboration  Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties  EPJC 74 (2014) 3076  CMSHIG13001 1407.0558 
50  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 11 (2018) 185  CMSHIG16040 1804.02716 
51  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
52  CMS Collaboration  Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JINST 10 (2015) P08010  CMSEGM14001 1502.02702 
53  CMS Collaboration  A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel  PLB 805 (2020) 135425  CMSHIG19004 2002.06398 
54  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
55  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS Level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13\,TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
56  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
57  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
58  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 10 (2011) 132  CMSEWK10005 1107.4789 
59  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 
60  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
61  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
62  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
63  K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi  NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production  JHEP 10 (2013) 222  1309.0017 
64  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
65  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016) 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
66  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
67  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector  CERN, 2016 link 
1610.07922 
68  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
69  T. Gleisberg et al.  Event generation with SHERPA 1.1  JHEP 02 (2009) 007  0811.4622 
70  CMS Collaboration  Energy calibration and resolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV  JINST 8 (2013) P09009  CMSEGM11001 1306.2016 
71  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
72  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
73  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
74  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
75  A. Hoecker et al.  TMVAtoolkit for multivariate data analysis  physics/0703039  
76  F. Pedregosa et al.  Scikitlearn: machine learning in Python  J. Machine Learning Res. 12 (2011) 2825  1201.0490 
77  R. A. Fisher  On the interpretation of $ \chi^{2} $ from contingency tables, and the calculation of $ p $  J. Royal Stat. Soc 85 (1922) 87  
78  P. D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies  Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method  JINST 10 (2015) P04015  1408.6865 
79  M. Oreglia  A study of the reactions $ \psi^\prime \to \gamma \gamma \psi $  PhD thesis, Stanford University, SLAC Report SLACR236, 1980 link 

80  T. Skwarnicki  A study of the radiative CASCADE transitions between the Upsilonprime and Upsilon resonances  PhD thesis, Cracow, INP, 1986 link 

81  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 
82  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMSPASLUM17004 
CMSPASLUM17004 
83  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
84  S. Carrazza et al.  An unbiased Hessian representation for Monte Carlo PDFs  EPJC 75 (2015) 369  1505.06736 
85  J. Gao and P. Nadolsky  A metaanalysis of parton distribution functions  JHEP 07 (2014) 035  1401.0013 
86  J. Butterworth et al.  PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II  JPG 43 (2016) 023001  1510.03865 
87  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{\mathrm{s}} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2021) 027  CMSHIG19015 2103.06956 
88  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, LHC Higgs Combination Group  Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011  CMS Note CMSNOTE2011005, ATLPHYSPUB201111, CERN, 2011 link 

89  T. Junk  Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics  NIM A 434 (1999) 435  hepex/9902006 
90  A. L. Read  Presentation of search results: the $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique  JPG 28 (2002) 2693  
91  G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells  Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics  EPJC 71 (2011) 1554  1007.1727 
92  L. Demortier  Pvalues and nuisance parameters  in Statistical issues for LHC physics. Proceedings, Workshop, PHYSTATLHC, Geneva, 2007 link 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 