CMSPASHIG19011  
Measurement of the ttH and tH production rates in the H $ \to\mathrm{b\overline{b}} $ decay channel with 138 fb$ ^{1} $ of protonproton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
22 August 2023  
Abstract: An analysis of the production of a Higgs boson (H) in association with a top quarkantiquark pair (ttH) or a single top quark (tH) in the channel where the Higgs boson decays into a bottom quarkantiquark pair (H $\to\mathrm{b\overline{b}} $) is presented. The analysis utilises protonproton collision data collected at the CERN LHC with the CMS experiment at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV between 2016 and 2018, which correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{1} $. All three decay channels of the $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ system are considered. Various signal interpretations are performed. The observed ttH production rate relative to the standard model (SM) expectation is 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.26 $ = $ 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.17 (stat) $ \pm $ 0.21 (syst). Additionally, the ttH production rate is determined in intervals of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $. An upper limit at 95% confidence level on the tH production rate of 14.6 times the SM expectation is observed, with an expectation of 19.3 $ ^{+9.2}_{6.0} $. Finally, constraints are derived on the strength and structure of the coupling between the Higgs boson and the top quark from simultaneous extraction of the ttH and tH production rates.  
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to JHEP. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. 
Figures & Tables  Summary  Additional Figures & Tables  References  CMS Publications 

Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Representative leadingorder Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Representative leadingorder Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Representative leadingorder Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
Representative leadingorder Feynman diagrams for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a top quarkantiquark pair (left) and for the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson in the $ t $ channel, where the Higgs boson couples to the top quark (centre) or the W boson (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD background prediction is taken from simulation. The expected ttH signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD background prediction is taken from simulation. The expected ttH signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD background prediction is taken from simulation. The expected ttH signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Jet multiplicity distribution in the FH (upper left), SL (upper right), and DL (lower) channels, after the baseline selection and prior to the fit to the data. Here, the QCD background prediction is taken from simulation. The expected ttH signal contribution, scaled as indicated in the legend for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3d:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3e:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 3f:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified with reconstruction BDT (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 6 jets in the SL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 25 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4e:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 4f:
Minimum $ \Delta R $ between any two btagged jets (upper), MEM discriminant output (middle), and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the Higgs boson candidate identified as pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ (lower) for events passing the baseline selection requirements and additionally $ \geq $ 4 jets in the DL channel prefit (left) and with the postfit background model (right) obtained from the fit to data described in Section 10. In the prefit case, the ttH signal contribution, scaled by a factor 50 for better visibility, is also overlayed (line). Where applicable, the last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Illustration of the analysis strategy for the inclusive ttH and tH signalstrength modifier and coupling and CP measurements (upper) and for the ttH STXS measurement (lower). The procedure is applied separately for the three years of data taking. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Illustration of the analysis strategy for the inclusive ttH and tH signalstrength modifier and coupling and CP measurements (upper) and for the ttH STXS measurement (lower). The procedure is applied separately for the three years of data taking. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Illustration of the analysis strategy for the inclusive ttH and tH signalstrength modifier and coupling and CP measurements (upper) and for the ttH STXS measurement (lower). The procedure is applied separately for the three years of data taking. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6d:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6e:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 6f:
Categorisation efficiency of the ttH signal events in the STXS analysis in the different categories of the FH channel (upper row, middle row left), the SL channel (middle row right, lower row left), and the DL channel (lower row right). 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 7c:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (category yield, ANN score, or ratio of ANN scores) bin for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Bestfit results of the ttH signalstrength modifier $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in each channel (upper three rows), in each year (middle three rows), and in the combination of all channels and years (lower row). Uncertainties are correlated between the channels and years. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Observed likelihoodratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of the ttH signalstrength modifier $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ and the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ background normalisation, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) bestfit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions. The $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $ background normalisation and all other nuisance parameters are profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Postfit values of the nuisance parameters (black markers), shown as the difference of their bestfit values, $ \hat{\theta} $, and prefit values, $ \theta_{0} $, relative to the prefit uncertainties $ \Delta\theta $. The impact $ \Delta\hat{\mu} $ of the nuisance parameters on the signal strength $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ is computed as the difference of the nominal best fit value of $ \mu $ and the best fit value obtained when fixing the nuisance parameter under scrutiny to its best fit value $ \hat{\theta} $ plus/minus its postfit uncertainty (coloured areas). The nuisance parameters are ordered by their impact, and only the 20 highest ranked parameters are shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled ttH 1 to 5) in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled ttH 1 to 5) in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled ttH 1 to 5) in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 11c:
Observed (points) and postfit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (upper), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (lower) datataking periods. The fitted signal distributions (lines labelled ttH 1 to 5) in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are shown in the middle pads. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the postfit expected total signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Bestfit results of the ttH signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different bins of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (left) and their correlations (right) of the STXS measurement. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Bestfit results of the ttH signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different bins of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (left) and their correlations (right) of the STXS measurement. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Bestfit results of the ttH signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different bins of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (left) and their correlations (right) of the STXS measurement. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Observed (solid vertical line) and expected (dashed vertical line) upper 95% CL limit on the tH signal strength modifier $ \mu_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H}} $ for different channels and years, where the uncertainties are uncorrelated between the channels and years, and in their combination. The green (yellow) areas indicate the one (two) standard deviation confidence intervals on the expected limit. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Observed likelihoodratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of the ttH and tH signal strength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) bestfit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\text{V}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) bestfit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) values of the likelihood ratio for $ \kappa_{\text{V}}= $ 1 are also shown (right), together with the 1 (green area) and 2 (yellow area) standard deviations confidence intervals. 
png pdf 
Figure 15a:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\text{V}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) bestfit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) values of the likelihood ratio for $ \kappa_{\text{V}}= $ 1 are also shown (right), together with the 1 (green area) and 2 (yellow area) standard deviations confidence intervals. 
png pdf 
Figure 15b:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \kappa_{\text{V}} $, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) bestfit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) values of the likelihood ratio for $ \kappa_{\text{V}}= $ 1 are also shown (right), together with the 1 (green area) and 2 (yellow area) standard deviations confidence intervals. 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Observed likelihood ratio test statistic (blue shading) as a function of $ \kappa_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \tilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}} $, where $ \kappa_{\text{V}}= $ 1, together with the observed (blue) and SM expected (black) bestfit points (cross and diamond markers) as well as the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL regions (left). 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{\text{CP}} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\text{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\tilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 17a:
The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{\text{CP}} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\text{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\tilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 17b:
The observed (solid blue line) and expected (dotted black line) likelihood ratio test statistic as a function of $ f_{\text{CP}} $ (left) and $ \cos\alpha $ (right), where $ \kappa_{\text{V}} $ is 1 and $ \kappa^{\prime}_{\mathrm{t}}=\sqrt{\tilde{\kappa}_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}+\kappa_{\mathrm{t}}^{2}} $, the overall modifier of the topHiggs coupling strength, is profiled such that the likelihood attains its minimum at each point in the plane. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Trigger selection criteria in the fullyhadronic (FH) channel. Multiple triggers, each represented by one row, are used per year and combined with a logical OR. In the case of the fourjet trigger, the minimum jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ is different for each jet and separated by a slash (/). 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Generator version and configuration of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ samples. The parameters $m_{\mathrm{t}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{b}}$ denote the top quark and bottom quark mass, respectively, $m_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{t}}$, $m_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}$, and $m_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{g}}$ the transverse mass of the top quark, the bottom quark, and additional gluons, respectively, and $ h_{\text{damp}} $ the partonshower matching scale. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Baseline selection criteria in the fullyhadronic (FH), singlelepton (SL), and dilepton (DL) channels based on the observables defined in the text. Where the criteria differ per year of data taking, they are quoted as three values, corresponding to 2016/2017/2018, respectively. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
Categorisation scheme in the FH channel, applied independently in each jetmultiplicity category. The $m_{\mathrm{qq}}$ selection criteria refer to events with 7 or 8 ($ \geq $ 9) jets. 
png pdf 
Table 5:
Observables used as input variables to the ANN per channel. Observables marked with a $ ^{\dagger} $ are constructed using information from the BDTbased event reconstruction. 
png pdf 
Table 6:
Systematic uncertainties considered in the analysis. ``Type'' refers to rate (R) or rate and shape (S) altering uncertainties. ``Correlation'' indicates whether the uncertainty is treated as correlated, partially correlated (as detailed in the text), or uncorrelated across the years 201618. Uncertainties for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $+jets events marked with a $ ^{\dagger} $ are treated as partially correlated between each of the STXS categories and the other categories in the STXS analysis. 
png pdf 
Table 7:
Bestfit results of the ttH signalstrength modifier $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in each channel and in their combination. Uncertainties are correlated between the channels. 
png pdf 
Table 8:
Contributions of different sources of uncertainty to the result for the fit to the data (observed) and to the expectation from simulation (expected). The quoted uncertainties $ \Delta\mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ are obtained by fixing the listed sources of uncertainties to their postfit values in the fit and subtracting the obtained result in quadrature from the result of the full fit. The statistical uncertainty is evaluated by fixing all nuisance parameters to their postfit values and repeating the fit. The quadratic sum of the contributions is different from the total uncertainty because of correlations between the nuisance parameters. 
png pdf 
Table 9:
Bestfit results of the ttH signalstrength modifier $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} $ in the different bins of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the STXS measurement. 
Summary 
A combined analysis of the associated production of a Higgs boson (H) with a top quarkantiquark pair (ttH) or a single top quark (tH) with the Higgs boson decaying into a bottom quarkantiquark pair has been presented. The analysis has been performed using pp collision data recorded with the CMS detector at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $ \mathcal{L} $. Candidate events are selected in mutually exclusive categories according to the lepton and jet multiplicity, targeting all decay channels of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system. Neural network discriminants are used to further categorise the events according to the most probable process, targeting the signal and different topologies of the dominant $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $+jets background, as well as to separate the signal from the background. Compared to previous CMS results in this channel, several updates of the analysis strategy as well as modelling of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $+jets background based on stateofthe art $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ simulations have been adopted, and an extended set of interpretations is performed. A bestfit value of the ttH production cross section relative to the standard model (SM) expectation of 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.26 $ = $ 0.33 $ \pm $ 0.17 (stat) $ \pm $ 0.21 (syst) is obtained. The analysis is additionally performed within the Simplified Template Cross Section framework in five intervals of Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, probing potential $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ dependent deviations from the SM expectation. An observed (expected) upper limit on the tH production cross section relative to the SM expectation of 14.6 (19.3) at 95% confidence level is derived. Information on the Higgs boson coupling strength is furthermore inferred from a simultaneous fit of the ttH and tH production rates, probing either the coupling strength of the Higgs boson to top quarks and to heavy vector bosons, or possible CPodd admixtures in the coupling between the Higgs boson and top quarks. 
Additional Figures  
png pdf 
Additional Figure 1:
Transverse momentum of leading jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the The last bins include overflow events. category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 1a:
Transverse momentum of leading jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the The last bins include overflow events. category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 1b:
Transverse momentum of leading jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the The last bins include overflow events. category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 2:
Transverse momentum of third leading btagged jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 2a:
Transverse momentum of third leading btagged jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 2b:
Transverse momentum of third leading btagged jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 3:
b tagging discriminant value of leading jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 3a:
b tagging discriminant value of leading jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 3b:
b tagging discriminant value of leading jet, ranked in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 4:
Third highest b tagging discriminant value of all jets for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 4a:
Third highest b tagging discriminant value of all jets for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 4b:
Third highest b tagging discriminant value of all jets for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 5:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 5a:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 5b:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 6:
Invariant mass of pair of btagged jets with mass closest to 125 GeV for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 6a:
Invariant mass of pair of btagged jets with mass closest to 125 GeV for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 6b:
Invariant mass of pair of btagged jets with mass closest to 125 GeV for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 7:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets with mass closest to 125 GeV for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 7a:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets with mass closest to 125 GeV for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 7b:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets with mass closest to 125 GeV for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 8:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 8a:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 8b:
Transverse momentum of pair of btagged jets closest in $ \Delta R $ for events in the DL channel after the baseline selection, prefit (left) and with the postfit background model obtained from the fit of the final classifier distributions to data (right). The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bins include overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 9:
Average $ \Delta\eta $ between any two btagged jets for events in the SL channel after the baseline selection in the ($\geq$6 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) category prior to the fit to data, where the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ background contribution has been estimated using the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ 5 FS sample. The uncertainty band represents the total uncertainty. The last bin includes overflow events. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 10:
Validation of the QCD background estimation procedure: ANN output distribution observed in data compared to the predicted contributions from QCD (from datadriven procedure) and from other background processes (from simulation) in the ($\geq$9 jets, $\geq$4 b tags) validation region of the FH channel. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11:
Prefit expected (filled histograms) and observed (points) yields in each discriminant bin for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11a:
Prefit expected (filled histograms) and observed (points) yields in each discriminant bin for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11b:
Prefit expected (filled histograms) and observed (points) yields in each discriminant bin for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11c:
Prefit expected (filled histograms) and observed (points) yields in each discriminant bin for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (line). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12:
Observed (points) and prefit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The signal distributions in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are also overlayed (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (lines). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12a:
Observed (points) and prefit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The signal distributions in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are also overlayed (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (lines). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12b:
Observed (points) and prefit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The signal distributions in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are also overlayed (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (lines). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12c:
Observed (points) and prefit expected (filled histograms) yields in each STXS analysis discriminant bin in the signal regions of the SL and DL channels for the 2016 (top), 2017 (middle), and 2018 (bottom) datataking periods. The signal distributions in each Higgs boson $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ bin are also overlayed (lines labelled $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ 1 to 5). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the background (points) and of the prefit expected signal+background to the backgroundonly contribution (lines). 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 13:
Postfit values of the nuisance parameters (black markers) in the STXS analysis, shown as the difference of their bestfit values, $ \hat{\theta} $, and prefit values, $ \theta_{0} $, relative to the prefit uncertainties $ \Delta\theta $. The impact $ \Delta\hat{\mu}_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}^{i} $ of the nuisance parameters on the signal strength $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}^{i} $ in the $ i $th STXS bin is computed as the difference of the nominal best fit value of $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}^{i} $ and the best fit value obtained when fixing the nuisance parameter under scrutiny to its best fit value $ \hat{\theta} $ plus/minus its postfit uncertainty (coloured areas). The nuisance parameters are ordered by the quadratic sum of their relative impacts on all five $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}^{i} $, and only the 20 highest ranked parameters are shown. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 14:
Correlations of the bestfit $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ signalstrength modifiers $ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}}^{i} $ in the different STXS bins $ i $ and the global ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $) and perbin ($ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B}\;i $) $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ background normalisation parameters. 
Additional Tables  
png pdf 
Additional Table 1:
Results of background model robustness tests performed in the SL+DL channels. For the tests, pseudo data are generated sampling the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ component from alternative $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ predictions, and fitted using the nominal signal+background model. The injected signal corresponds to the SM expectation ($ \mu_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}} = $ 1). Pseudo data are sampled in different scenarios. First, the data are sampled from the nominal background model used in the analysis, as a crosscheck. Second, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ yield from the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ sample is scaled by a factor 1.2. In the next two tests, the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ component is taken from the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ sample, once at its nominal value and once scaling its yield up by a factor 1.2. The table lists the mean values of the bestfit signal strength modifier, as well as the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $ background normalisation parameters obtained in the fits to the pseudo data. The quoted uncertainty corresponds to the RMS of the distributions. The statistical uncertainty on the mean values is below 1%. In all cases the fitted signal strength is compatible with the injected value of 1, showing that the fit is robust against potential mismodelling of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ component. Also the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{B} $ and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{C} $ normalisations are compatible with the injected values within. 
References  
1  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector  PLB 784 (2018) 159  1806.00425 
2  CMS Collaboration  Observation of $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production  PRL 120 (2018) 231801  CMSHIG17035 1804.02610 
3  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decays and VH production with the ATLAS detector  PLB 786 (2018) 59  1808.08238 
4  CMS Collaboration  Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks  PRL 121 (2018) 121801  CMSHIG18016 1808.08242 
5  F. Maltoni, K. Paul, T. Stelzer, and S. Willenbrock  Associated production of Higgs and single top at hadron colliders  PRD 64 (2001) 094023  hepph/0106293 
6  M. Farina et al.  Lifting degeneracies in Higgs couplings using single top production in association with a Higgs boson  JHEP 05 (2013) 022  1211.3736 
7  P. Agrawal, S. Mitra, and A. Shivaji  Effect of anomalous couplings on the associated production of a single top quark and a Higgs boson at the LHC  JHEP 12 (2013) 077  1211.4362 
8  F. Demartin, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and M. Zaro  Higgs production in association with a single top quark at the LHC  EPJC 75 (2015) 267  1504.00611 
9  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector  1610.07922  
10  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of Higgs boson decay into bquarks in associated production with a topquark pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 06 (2022) 097  2111.06712 
11  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel with leptonic $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ decays in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 03 (2019) 026  CMSHIG17026 1804.03682 
12  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ production in the alljet final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 06 (2018)  CMSHIG17022 1803.06986 
13  CMS Collaboration  Search for associated production of a Higgs boson and a single top quark in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD 99 (2019) 092005  CMSHIG18009 1811.09696 
14  ATLAS Collaboration  Probing the $ CP $ nature of the topHiggs Yukawa coupling in $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ and $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ events with $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decays using the ATLAS detector at the LHC  Submitted to PLB, 2023  2303.05974 
15  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
16  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
17  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
18  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 
19  CMS  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMSPASLUM17004 
CMSPASLUM17004 
20  CMS  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
21  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
22  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
23  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
24  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 
25  T. Je žo and P. Nason  On the treatment of resonances in nexttoleading order calculations matched to a parton shower  JHEP 12 (2015) 065  1509.09071 
26  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 
27  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 
28  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
29  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
30  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA 8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
31  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016) 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
32  F. Maltoni, G. Ridolfi, and M. Ubiali  binitiated processes at the LHC: a reappraisal  JHEP 07 (2012) 022  1203.6393 
33  F. Demartin et al.  $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{H} $ associated production at the LHC  EPJC 77 (2017) 34  1607.05862 
34  J. S. Gainer et al.  Exploring theory space with Monte Carlo reweighting  JHEP 10 (2014) 078  1404.7129 
35  O. Mattelaer  On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: reweighting events at NLO accuracy  EPJC 76 (2016) 674  1607.00763 
36  T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert, N. Moretti, and S. Pozzorini  New NLOPS predictions for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}+\mathrm{b} $jet production at the LHC  EPJC 78 (2018) 502  1802.00426 
37  F. Buccioni et al.  OpenLoops 2  EPJC 79 (2019) 866  1907.13071 
38  F. Cascioli et al.  NLO matching for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production with massive bquarks  PLB 734 (2014) 210  1309.5912 
39  F. Buccioni, S. Kallweit, S. Pozzorini, and M. F. Zoller  NLO QCD predictions for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production in association with a light jet at the LHC  JHEP 12 (2019) 015  1907.13624 
40  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  NLO singletop production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $ and $ t $channel contributions  JHEP 09 (2009) 111  0907.4076 
41  E. Re  Singletop Wtchannel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method  EPJC 71 (2011) 1547  1009.2450 
42  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
43  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 
44  CMS Collaboration  A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel  PLB 805 (2020) 135425  CMSHIG19004 2002.06398 
45  M. Cacciari et al.  Toppair production at hadron colliders with nexttonexttoleading logarithmic softgluon resummation  PLB 710 (2012) 612  1111.5869 
46  P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov  Percentlevelprecision physics at the Tevatron: nexttonexttoleading order QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\to\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\text{+X} $  PRL 109 (2012) 132001  1204.5201 
47  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  NNLO corrections to toppair production at hadron colliders: the allfermionic scattering channels  JHEP 12 (2012) 054  1207.0236 
48  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quarkgluon reaction  JHEP 01 (2013) 080  1210.6832 
49  M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn  Hadronic topquark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation  NPB 855 (2012) 695  1109.1536 
50  M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov  Total topquark pairproduction cross section at hadron colliders through $ o({\alpha_s}^4) $  PRL 110 (2013) 252004  1303.6254 
51  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  Top++: a program for the calculation of the toppair crosssection at hadron colliders  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930  1112.5675 
52  N. Kidonakis  Twoloop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with $ \mathrm{W^} $ or $ \mathrm{H}^{} $  PRD 82 (2010) 054018  1005.4451 
53  M. Aliev et al.  HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR  Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 1034  1007.1327 
54  P. Kant et al.  HatHor for single topquark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single topquark production in hadronic collisions  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74  1406.4403 
55  F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, and I. Tsinikos  Associated production of a topquark pair with vector bosons at NLO in QCD: impact on $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ searches at the LHC  JHEP 02 (2016) 113  1507.05640 
56  J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams  Vector boson pair production at the LHC  JHEP 07 (2011) 018  1105.0020 
57  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
58  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the phase2 upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

59  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 
60  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
61  CMS Collaboration  ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots  CMS Detector Performance Summary CMSDP2020021, 2020 CDS 

62  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
63  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
64  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The catchment area of jets  JHEP 04 (2008) 005  0802.1188 
65  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
66  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 1712.07158 
67  E. Bols et al.  Jet flavour classification using DeepJet  JINST 15 (2020) P12012  2008.10519 
68  CMS Collaboration  Btagging performance of the CMS legacy dataset 2018  CMS Detector Performance Summary CMSDP2021004, 2021 CDS 

69  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 
70  K. Kondo  Dynamical likelihood method for reconstruction of events with missing momentum. 1: Method and toy models  J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 57 (1988) 4126  
71  CMS Collaboration  Inclusive and differential cross section measurements of $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production in the lepton+jets channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the CMS detector  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2023 CMSPASTOP22009 
CMSPASTOP22009 
72  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the cross section for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with additional jets and b jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2020) 125  CMSTOP18002 2003.06467 
73  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production cross section in the alljet final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 803 (2020) 135285  CMSTOP18011 1909.05306 
74  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and the LHC Higgs Combination Group  Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011  ATLPHYSPUB2011011, CMS NOTE2011/005, 2011 link 

75  J. S. Conway  Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra  PHYSTAT 201 (2011) 1  1103.0354 
76  J. D. Bjorken and S. J. Brodsky  Statistical model for electronpositron annihilation into hadrons  PRD 1 (1970) 1416  
77  G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram  Event shapes in $ \mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^ $ annihilation  Nuclear Physics B 157 (1979) 543  
78  I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville  Deep Learning  MIT Press, 2016 link 

79  J. K. Lindsey  Parametric statistical inference  Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1996  
80  CMS Collaboration  Performance of deep tagging algorithms for boosted double quark jet topology in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV with the phase0 CMS detector  CMS Detector Performance Summary CMSDP2018046, 2018 CDS 

81  F. Chollet et al.  Keras  link  
82  S. Jasper, L. Hugo, and P. A. Ryan  Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms  1206.2944  
83  F. Luca, D. Michele, F. Paolo, and P. Massimiliano  Forward and reverse gradientbased hyperparameter optimization  in 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 70. PMLR, 2017  
84  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC Run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
85  P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo  Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune  EPJC 74 (2014) 3024  1404.5630 
86  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD 97 (2018) 112003  CMSTOP17002 1803.08856 
87  J. R. Andersen et al.  Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV colliders standard model working group report  1803.07977  
88  CMS Tracker Group Collaboration  The CMS phase1 pixel detector upgrade  JINST 16 (2021) P02027  2012.14304 
89  R. Barlow and C. Beeston  Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples  Comp. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219  
90  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production with additional charm jets using dileptonic final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 820 (2021) 136565  CMSTOP20003 2012.09225 
91  LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group  Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties  1307.1347  
92  A. V. Gritsan, R. Röntsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao  Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques  PRD 94 (2016) 055023  1606.03107 
93  F. Demartin et al.  Higgs characterisation at NLO in QCD: CP properties of the topquark Yukawa interaction  EPJC 74 (2014) 3065  1407.5089 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 