CMSTOP22010 ; CERNEP2023234  
Search for new Higgs bosons via samesign top quark pair production in association with a jet in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
6 November 2023  
Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138478  
Abstract: A search is presented for new Higgs bosons in protonproton (pp) collision events in which a samesign top quark pair is produced in association with a jet, via the $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{A} \to\mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{c}} $ and $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H}/\mathrm{A} \to\mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{u}} $ processes. Here, H and A represent the extra scalar and pseudoscalar boson, respectively, of the second Higgs doublet in the generalized twoHiggsdoublet model (g2HDM). The search is based on pp collision data collected at a centerofmass energy of 13 TeV with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{1} $. Final states with a samesign lepton pair in association with jets and missing transverse momentum are considered. New Higgs bosons in the 2001000 GeV mass range and new Yukawa couplings between 0.1 and 1.0 are targeted in the search, for scenarios in which either H or A appear alone, or in which they coexist and interfere. No significant excess above the standard model prediction is observed. Exclusion limits are derived in the context of the g2HDM.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2311.03261 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagram for $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{q}} $ ($ \mathrm{q} = $ u, c) production through a new scalar (H) or pseudoscalar (A) Higgs boson. In this analysis, events with $ \mathrm{q}=\mathrm{q}' $ are considered. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
The prefit CvsL (left) and CvsB (right) distributions for the selected highest $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet. The predictions for $ m_{\mathrm{A} } = $ 350 GeV with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} } m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 50 GeV for $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}= $ 1.0 (solid blue line) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}}= $ 1.0 (dashed red line) are also displayed. The numbers in square brackets represent the yields for each sample. The uncertainty bars on the points and the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainties in the data and in the background predictions, respectively. Beneath each plot the ratio of data to predictions is shown. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plots include statistical uncertainties in the data and in the background predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
The prefit CvsL distribution for the selected highest $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet. The predictions for $ m_{\mathrm{A} } = $ 350 GeV with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} } m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 50 GeV for $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}= $ 1.0 (solid blue line) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}}= $ 1.0 (dashed red line) are also displayed. The numbers in square brackets represent the yields for each sample. The uncertainty bars on the points and the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainties in the data and in the background predictions, respectively. Beneath the plot the ratio of data to predictions is shown. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plot include statistical uncertainties in the data and in the background predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
The prefit CvsB distribution for the selected highest $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet. The predictions for $ m_{\mathrm{A} } = $ 350 GeV with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} } m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 50 GeV for $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}= $ 1.0 (solid blue line) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}}= $ 1.0 (dashed red line) are also displayed. The numbers in square brackets represent the yields for each sample. The uncertainty bars on the points and the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainties in the data and in the background predictions, respectively. Beneath the plot the ratio of data to predictions is shown. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plot include statistical uncertainties in the data and in the background predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Postfit distributions of the BDT discriminants combining the categories $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $, for $ m_{\mathrm{A} }= $ 350 GeV with $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}= $ 1.0 (left), and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}}= $ 1.0 (right) with the AH interference. The numbers in square brackets represent the yields for each sample. The uncertainty bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the data. Beneath each plot the ratio of data to predictions is shown. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plots include statistical uncertainties in the data and the total uncertainty in the background predictions, and the hatched bands represent the total uncertainty in the background predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Postfit distribution of the BDT discriminants combining the categories $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $, for $ m_{\mathrm{A} }= $ 350 GeV with $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}= $ 1.0 with the AH interference. The numbers in square brackets represent the yields for each sample. The uncertainty bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the data. Beneath the plot the ratio of data to predictions is shown. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plot include statistical uncertainties in the data and the total uncertainty in the background predictions, and the hatched bands represent the total uncertainty in the background predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Postfit distribution of the BDT discriminants combining the categories $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $, for $ m_{\mathrm{A} }= $ 350 GeV with $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}}= $ 1.0 with the AH interference. The numbers in square brackets represent the yields for each sample. The uncertainty bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainties in the data. Beneath the plot the ratio of data to predictions is shown. The uncertainty bars in the ratio plot include statistical uncertainties in the data and the total uncertainty in the background predictions, and the hatched bands represent the total uncertainty in the background predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength as functions of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ for g2HDM using different coupling assumptions: $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 (left) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 (right) without interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength as functions of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ for g2HDM using different coupling assumptions: $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 without interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength as functions of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ for g2HDM using different coupling assumptions: $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 without interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength as functions of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ for g2HDM using different coupling assumptions: $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 (left) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 (right) with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} }  m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 50 GeV, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength as functions of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ for g2HDM using different coupling assumptions: $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} }  m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 50 GeV, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength as functions of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ for g2HDM using different coupling assumptions: $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 0.1, 0.4, 1.0 with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} }  m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 50 GeV, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the backgroundonly hypothesis. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} $ (left) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} $ (right) for g2HDM without the AH interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The color axis represents the observed upper limit on the signal strength. Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) exclusion contours are also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} $ for g2HDM without the AH interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The color axis represents the observed upper limit on the signal strength. Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) exclusion contours are also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} $ for g2HDM without the AH interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The color axis represents the observed upper limit on the signal strength. Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) exclusion contours are also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} $ (left) and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} $ (right) for g2HDM signal model with the AH interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The color axis represents the observed upper limit on the signal strength. Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) exclusion contours are also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} $ for g2HDM signal model with the AH interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The color axis represents the observed upper limit on the signal strength. Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) exclusion contours are also shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal strength as a function of $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ and $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} $ for g2HDM signal model with the AH interference, for the combination of the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{e}^\pm $, $ \mu^\pm\mu^\pm $, and $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\pm $ categories. The color axis represents the observed upper limit on the signal strength. Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) exclusion contours are also shown. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Input variables of the BDT. Jets and leptons are ordered by $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Summary of systematic uncertainties for $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}}= $ 0.4 and $ m_{\mathrm{A} } = $ 350 GeV with AH interference assuming $ m_{\mathrm{A} } m_{\mathrm{H}}= $ 50 GeV. The first column indicates the source of uncertainty. The second column specifies whether the shape of the fit discriminant is affected by the nuisance parameter (checkmark) or not (dash). The impact in percent of these nuisance parameters on the prefit expected event yields is displayed in the third column. This column is subdivided into three event categories representing the analysis channels. The percentage impacts are given as a range of values representing the minimum and maximum differences obtained in the different bins of the BDT distribution through the four datataking periods. The numbers for the normalization component of the nonprompt lepton background represent the uncertainties used for each datataking period. Whether or not a nuisance parameter is taken correlated across years and categories is specified in the last two columns. The luminosity and jet flavor identification nuisances are only partially correlated across years. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Observed (expected) lower limits on $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ at 95% CL. For the scenario without interference, the limits on $ m_{\mathrm{H}} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ are the same. 
Summary 
A search for new Yukawa couplings of the top quark in models with additional Higgs bosons in protonproton collisions at a centerofmass energy of 13 TeV has been presented. The process considered is the production of samesign top quark pairs associated with an up or a charm quark, and resulting in a final state containing two samesign leptons and jets. No significant excess above the background prediction is observed. When no interference between the pseudoscalar (A) and scalar (H) Higgs bosons is assumed, A or H bosons with masses below 920 GeV and 1000 GeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level (CL) for coupling values $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} = $ 0.4 and 1.0, respectively, while all other extra Yukawa couplings are assumed to be zero. Similarly, without interference between H and A, and assuming a coupling value of $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 1.0, A or H bosons with masses below approximately 770 GeV are excluded at the 95% CL. Under the assumption that A and H interfere in the scenario with a mass difference of $ m_{\mathrm{A} }  m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 50 GeV, the pseudoscalar Higgs boson is excluded for $ m_{\mathrm{A} } $ values below 1000 GeV when considering coupling values $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}} > $ 0.4. Furthermore, assuming $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 0.4, the exclusion limit for A is $ m_{\mathrm{A} } = $ 340 GeV, whereas assuming $ \rho_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c}} = $ 1.0, the limit extends to $ m_{\mathrm{A} } = $ 810 GeV at 95% CL. These results represent the first search based on the generalized twoHiggsdoublet model considering AH interference. 
References  
1  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PLB 716 (2012) 1  1207.7214 
2  CMS Collaboration  Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC  PLB 716 (2012) 30  CMSHIG12028 1207.7235 
3  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 08 (2016) 045  1606.02266 
4  E. da Silva Almeida et al.  Electroweak sector under scrutiny: A combined analysis of LHC and electroweak precision data  PRD 99 (2019) 033001  1812.01009 
5  E. d. S. Almeida, A. Alves, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. GonzalezGarcia  Electroweak legacy of the LHC run II  PRD 105 (2022) 013006  2108.04828 
6  ATLAS Collaboration  A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 52  2207.00092 
7  CMS Collaboration  A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 60  CMSHIG22001 2207.00043 
8  G. C. Branco et al.  Theory and phenomenology of twoHiggsdoublet models  Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1  1106.0034 
9  M. Kohda, T. Modak, and W.S. Hou  Searching for new scalar bosons via tripletop signature in $ cg \to ts^0 \to tt\bar t $  PLB 776 (2018) 379  1710.07260 
10  W.S. Hou  Tree level t $ \rightarrow $ ch$ ^0 $ or h$ ^0 \rightarrow $ t$ \mathrm{\bar{c}} $ decays  PLB 296 (1992) 179  
11  W.S. Hou and M. Kikuchi  Approximate alignment in two Higgs doublet model with extra Yukawa couplings  Eur. Phys. Lett. 123 (2018) 11001  1706.07694 
12  J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber  The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: The approach to the decoupling limit  PRD 67 (2003) 075019  hepph/0207010 
13  M. Carena, I. Low, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagner  Impersonating the standard model Higgs boson: Alignment without decoupling  JHEP 04 (2014) 015  1310.2248 
14  P. S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis  Maximally symmetric two Higgs doublet model with natural standard model alignment  JHEP 12 (2014) 024  1408.3405 
15  T. D. Lee  A theory of spontaneous T violation  PRD 8 (1973) 1226  
16  K. Fuyuto, W.S. Hou, and E. Senaha  Electroweak baryogenesis driven by extra top Yukawa couplings  PLB 776 (2018) 402  1705.05034 
17  K. Fuyuto, W.S. Hou, and E. Senaha  Cancellation mechanism for the electron electric dipole moment connected with the baryon asymmetry of the universe  PRD 101 (2020) 011901  1910.12404 
18  Muon g2 Collaboration  Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm  2308.06230  
19  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for heavy Higgs bosons with flavourviolating couplings in multilepton plus $ b $jets final states in $ pp $ collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  submitted to JHEP  2307.14759 
20  CMS Collaboration  HEPData record for this analysis  link  
21  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
22  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
23  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
24  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
25  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P06015  CMSMUO16001 1804.04528 
26  CMS Collaboration  Description and performance of track and primaryvertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker  JINST 9 (2014) P10009  CMSTRK11001 1405.6569 
27  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
28  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the phaseII upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

29  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
30  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  Fastjet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
31  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
32  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
33  CMS Collaboration  Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector  JINST 14 (2019) P07004  CMSJME17001 1903.06078 
34  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 
35  J. Alwall et al.  Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions  EPJC 53 (2008) 473  0706.2569 
36  W.S. Hou and T. Modak  Probing top changing neutral Higgs couplings at colliders  Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36 (2021) 2130006  2012.05735 
37  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
38  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
39  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
40  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG box  JHEP 06 (2010) 043  1002.2581 
41  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi  A positiveweight nexttoleadingorder Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction  JHEP 09 (2007) 126  0707.3088 
42  T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi  W$ ^+ $W$ ^ $, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG box  JHEP 11 (2011) 078  1107.5051 
43  E. Re  Singletop Wtchannel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method  EPJC 71 (2011) 1547  1009.2450 
44  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  NLO singletop production matched with shower in POWHEG: \it s and \it tchannel contributions  JHEP 09 (2009) 111  0907.4076 
45  H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth  Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX  PRD 91 (2015) 094003  1501.04498 
46  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
47  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
48  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
49  GEANT 4 Collaboration  GEANT 4  a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
50  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 
51  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  EPJC 81 (2021) 378  CMSHIG19008 2011.03652 
52  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the cross section of top quarkantiquark pair production in association with a W boson in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2023) 219  CMSTOP21011 2208.06485 
53  CMS Collaboration  Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV  JINST 10 (2015) P06005  CMSEGM13001 1502.02701 
54  K. Rehermann and B. Tweedie  Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC  JHEP 03 (2011) 059  1007.2221 
55  CMS Collaboration  A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with protonproton collision events at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV  JINST 17 (2022) P03014  CMSBTV20001 2111.03027 
56  CMS Collaboration  Performance summary of AK4 jet charm tagging with the CMS Run2 legacy dataset  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2023006, 2023 CDS 

57  E. Bols et al.  Jet flavour classification using DeepJet  JINST 15 (2020) P12012  2008.10519 
58  CMS Collaboration  Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from protonproton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2023005, 2023 CDS 

59  CMS Collaboration  Evidence for associated production of a Higgs boson with a top quark pair in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying $ \tau $ leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 08 (2018) 066  CMSHIG17018 1803.05485 
60  J. H. Friedman  Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine  Annals Statist. 29 (2001) 1189  
61  A. Hoecker et al.  TMVA  toolkit for multivariate data analysis  physics/0703039  
62  The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations and the LHC Higgs Combination Group  Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011  CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMSNOTE2011005, ATLPHYSPUB201111, 2011  
63  R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston  Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples  Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219  
64  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 
65  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 link 
CMSPASLUM17004 
66  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
67  S. Heinemeyer et al.  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties  CERN Report CERN2013004, 2013 link 
1307.1347 
68  T. Junk  Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics  NIM A 434 (1999) 435  hepex/9902006 
69  A. L. Read  Presentation of search results: the CL$ _s $ technique  JPG 28 (2002) 2693  
70  G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells  Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics  EPJC 71 (2011) 1554  1007.1727 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 