CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-HIG-20-002 ; CERN-EP-2024-088
Search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Accepted for publication in Phys. Lett. B
Abstract: The results of a search for a standard model-like 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 proton-proton 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.
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 1-a:
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 1-b:
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 1-c:
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 2-a:
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 2-b:
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 2-c:
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 3-a:
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 3-b:
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 3-c:
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 3-d:
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 4-a:
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 4-b:
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 4-c:
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 4-d:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis. The limit is shown relative to the expected SM-like value (left). The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SM-like Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty [67] (right).

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis. The limit is shown relative to the expected SM-like value (left). The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SM-like Higgs boson is shown as a solid line with a hatched band, indicating its uncertainty [67] (right).

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis. The limit is shown relative to the expected SM-like value (left). The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SM-like 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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis.

png pdf
Figure 7:
The observed local $ p $-values for an additional SM-like 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 background-only 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 SM-like 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 background-only 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, SM-like, low-mass 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 center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV in 2016-2018. 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 SM-like 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 Drell-Yan events (red) and simulated signal events corresponding to an SM-like 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 detector-based 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 Drell-Yan background. For the simulated Drell-Yan 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:
Two-dimensional 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 SM-like 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 detector-based 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:
Two-dimensional 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 Drell-Yan 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 detector-based 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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SM-like 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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SM-like 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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 SM-like 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 background-only hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical prediction for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons for an additional SM-like 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 SM-like 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 $, respectively, of the expectation under the background-only hypothesis. The corresponding theoretical predictions for the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons are shown as a solid blue line with a hatched red band indicating its uncertainty for an additional SM-like Higgs boson ($ \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 p-value 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 best-fit 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 p-value 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 best-fit 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} $, together with the result of a fit of the signal-plus-background model, under a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV. The one- and two-$ \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 signal-plus-background 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 = (1-f)\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 SM-like 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 background-only 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit 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 best-fit result is ($ \mu_{ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} } $, $ \mu_{VBF} $) = (0.0, 0.0).
References
1 S. L. Glashow Partial-symmetries 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 non-Abelian 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 CMS-HIG-12-028
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 CMS-HIG-12-036
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 CMS-HIG-22-001
2207.00043
15 A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich LHC constraints on two-Higgs-doublet 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. Two-Higgs-doublet 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 two-Higgs-doublet 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 two-Higgs-doublet 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 hep-ph/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 hep-ph/9502206
30 U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy Phenomenology of supersymmetric models with a singlet NPB 492 (1997) 21 hep-ph/9611251
31 T. Elliott, S. F. King, and P. L. White Unification constraints in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model PLB 351 (1995) 213 hep-ph/9406303
32 S. F. King and P. L. White Resolving the constrained minimal and next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard models PRD 52 (1995) 4183 hep-ph/9505326
33 F. Franke Neutralinos and Higgs bosons in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 12 (1997) 479 hep-ph/9512366
34 M. Maniatis The next-to-minimal 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 next-to-minimal 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 next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model Chin. Phys. C 38 (2014) 073101 1309.6394
37 U. Ellwanger and M. Rodriguez-Vazquez 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 next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 103107 1805.11438
41 H. Georgi and M. Machacek Doubly-charged Higgs bosons NPB 262 (1985) 463
42 H. E. Logan and V. Rentala All the generalized Georgi-Machacek models PRD 92 (2015) 075011 1502.01275
43 A. Ismail, B. Keeshan, H. E. Logan, and Y. Wu Benchmark for LHC searches for low-mass custodial fiveplet scalars in the Georgi-Machacek model PRD 103 (2021) 095010 2003.05536
44 C. Wang et al. Search for a lighter neutral custodial fiveplet scalar in the Georgi-Machacek 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 hep-ex/0306033
46 ATLAS Collaboration Search for scalar diphoton resonances in the mass range 65-600 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 model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in the diphoton final state in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV PLB 793 (2019) 320 CMS-HIG-17-013
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 CMS-HIG-13-001
1407.0558
50 CMS Collaboration Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2018) 185 CMS-HIG-16-040
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 proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P08010 CMS-EGM-14-001
1502.02702
53 CMS Collaboration A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel PLB 805 (2020) 135425 CMS-HIG-19-004
2002.06398
54 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
55 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13\,TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
56 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
57 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
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 CMS-EWK-10-005
1107.4789
59 J. Alwall et al. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations JHEP 07 (2014) 079 1405.0301
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 high-precision 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 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
66 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
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 4---a 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 CMS-EGM-11-001
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 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
74 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (2017) P02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
75 A. Hoecker et al. TMVA---toolkit for multivariate data analysis physics/0703039
76 F. Pedregosa et al. Scikit-learn: 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 SLAC-R-236, 1980
link
80 T. Skwarnicki A study of the radiative CASCADE transitions between the Upsilon-prime and Upsilon resonances PhD thesis, Cracow, INP, 1986
link
81 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS EPJC 81 (2021) 800 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
82 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
83 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
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 meta-analysis 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 CMS-HIG-19-015
2103.06956
88 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, CERN, 2011
link
89 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/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 likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
92 L. Demortier P-values and nuisance parameters in Statistical issues for LHC physics. Proceedings, Workshop, PHYSTAT-LHC, Geneva, 2007
link
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN