CMS-PAS-HIG-20-002

CMS-PAS-HIG-20-002
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
CMS Collaboration
20 March 2023

Abstract: The results of a search for a standard model-like Higgs boson in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV decaying into two photons are presented. The analysis uses the data set collected with the CMS experiment in proton-proton collisions corresponding to, respectively, 36.3 fb $^{-1}$ , 41.5 fb $^{-1}$ and 54.4 fb $^{-1}$ , during the 2016, 2017 and 2018 LHC running periods, at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV. The expected and observed 95% confidence level upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction into two photons are presented. The observed upper limit for the combined data set ranges from 73 fb to 15 fb.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to PLB. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures & Tables	Summary	Additional Figures	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Full parameterized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 90 GeV for 2016 (top left), 2017(top right) and 2018 (bottom). 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 parameterized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 90 GeV for 2016. 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.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Full parameterized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 90 GeV for 2017. 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.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: Full parameterized signal shape, integrated over all event classes, in simulated signal events with $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 90 GeV for 2018. 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.
png pdf	Figure 2: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2016 data in the three event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2016 data in the event class 0. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2016 data in the event class 1. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 2-c: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2016 data in the event class 2. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 3: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2017 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2017 data in the event class 0. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2017 data in the event class 1. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 3-c: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2017 data in the event class 2. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 3-d: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2017 data in the VBF event class. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 4: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2018 data in the four event classes. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panels.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2018 data in event class 0. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2018 data in event class 1. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-c: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2018 data in event class 2. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-d: Background model fits using the chosen ``best-fit" parametrization to the 2018 data in the VBF event class. The corresponding signal model for each class for $m_{\mathrm{H}}=$ 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 best-fit model is shown in the lower panel.
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 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 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 [58] (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 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 limit is shown relative to the expected SM-like value.
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 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 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 [58].
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 $\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}$ plus ${\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}$ (top left) and VBF plus VH (top right) processes, and assuming 100% production via the VBF (bottom left) and VH (bottom right) processes, 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.
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 $\mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H}$ plus ${\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H}$ processes, 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.
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 VBF plus VH processes, 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.
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, assuming 100% production via the VBF process, 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.
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, assuming 100% production via the VH process, 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.
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.
png pdf	Figure 8: Events in all classes of the combined 13 TeV dataset, 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 below.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Families and orders of functions chosen as best fit when summed with the DCB plus 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 Drell--Yan 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 integrated luminosities of 36.3, 41.5 and 54.4 fb

$^{-1}$ collected at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. 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 combined data set ranges from 73 fb to 15 fb. The statistical combination of the results from the analyses of the three data sets presents an observed excess with respect to the standard model prediction, which is maximal for a mass hypothesis of 95.4 GeV with a local (global) significance of 2.9\,(1.3) standard deviations. This is the first search for new resonances in the diphoton final state in this mass range based on all LHC data collected at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.

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 $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ / GeV $^{2}$ ) for simulated relic Drell--Yan events (red) and simulated signal events corresponding to a 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 relic 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 $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ / GeV $^{2}$ ) versus diphoton transverse momentum ( $p_{T}^{\gamma\gamma}$ /GeV) for simulated signal events corresponding to a 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 $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ / GeV $^{2}$ ), $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ /GeV $^{2}$ ) $=$ 0.016 $\times$ $p_{T}^{\gamma\gamma}$ / GeV $+$ 6.0, is shown as the white line.
png pdf	Additional Figure 6: Two-dimensional distribution of $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ / GeV $^{2}$ ) versus diphoton transverse momentum ( $p_{T}^{\gamma\gamma}$ /GeV) for simulated relic 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 $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ / GeV $^{2}$ ), $\ln$ ( $\Sigma p_{T}^{2}$ /GeV $^{2}$ ) $=$ 0.016 $\times$ $p_{T}^{\gamma\gamma}$ /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: Values of the signal strength $\hat{\mu}$ 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 $\hat{\mu}$ 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 14: Values of the signal strength $\hat{\mu}$ 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 $\hat{\mu}$ 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 15: 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. 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 below.

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	A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich	LHC constraints on two-Higgs doublet models	JHEP 07 (2013) 053	1302.4022
14	B. Coleppa, F. Kling, and S. Su	Constraining type II 2HDM in light of LHC Higgs searches	JHEP 01 (2014) 161	1305.0002
15	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
16	J. Bernon et al.	Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models. II. m $_h$ =125 GeV	PRD 93 (2016) 035027	1511.03682
17	G. Cacciapaglia et al.	Search for a lighter Higgs boson in two Higgs doublet models	JHEP 12 (2016) 68	1607.08653
18	P. Fayet	Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino	NPB 90 (1975) 104
19	R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy	Gauge models with spontaneously broken local supersymmetry	PLB 119 (1982) 343
20	M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki	A simple solution to the strong CP problem with a harmless axion	PLB 104 (1981) 199
21	H. P. Nilles, M. Srednicki, and D. Wyler	Weak interaction breakdown induced by supergravity	PLB 120 (1983) 346
22	J. M. Frère, D. R. T. Jones, and S. Raby	Fermion masses and induction of the weak scale by supergravity	NPB 222 (1983) 11
23	J. P. Derendinger and C. A. Savoy	Quantum effects and SU(2) x U(1) breaking in supergravity gauge theories	NPB 237 (1984) 307
24	J. Ellis et al.	Higgs bosons in a nonminimal supersymmetric model	PRD 39 (1989) 844
25	M. Drees	Supersymmetric models with extended Higgs sector	Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4 (1989) 3635
26	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
27	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
28	U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, and C. A. Savoy	Phenomenology of supersymmetric models with a singlet	NPB 492 (1997) 21	hep-ph/9611251
29	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
30	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
31	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
32	M. Maniatis	The next-to-minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model reviewed	Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 3505	0906.0777
33	U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira	The next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model	Phys. Rept. 496 (2010) 1	0910.1785
34	J.-W. Fan et al.	Study of diphoton decays of the lightest scalar Higgs boson in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model	Chinese Physics C 38 (2014) 073101	1309.6394
35	U. Ellwanger and M. Rodriguez-Vazquez	Discovery prospects of a light scalar in the NMSSM	JHEP 02 (2016) 096	1512.04281
36	M. Guchait and J. Kumar	Diphoton signal of light pseudoscalar in NMSSM at the LHC	PRD 95 (2017) 035036	1608.05693
37	J. Cao et al.	Diphoton signal of the light Higgs boson in natural NMSSM	PRD 95 (2017) 116001	1612.08522
38	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
39	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
40	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
41	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
42	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
43	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004
44	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
45	CMS Collaboration	A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel	PLB 805 (2020) 135425	CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398
46	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
47	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
48	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
49	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
50	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
51	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
52	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
53	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 663	1706.00428
54	K. Hamilton, P. Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi	NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production	JHEP 10 (2013) 222	1309.0017
55	T. Sjöstrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
56	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
57	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
58	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
59	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit	NIM A 506 (2003) 250
60	T. Gleisberg et al.	Event generation with SHERPA 1.1	JHEP 02 (2009) 007	0811.4622
61	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
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	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
65	A. Höcker et al.	TMVA - Toolkit for multivariate data analysis		physics/0703039
66	F. Pedregosa et al.	Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python	J. Machine Learning Res. 12 (2011) 2825	1201.0490
67	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
68	M. Oreglia	A study of the reactions $\psi^\prime \to \gamma \gamma \psi$	PhD thesis, Stanford University, SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, 1980 link
69	R. A. Fisher	On the interpretation of $\chi^{2}$ from contingency tables, and the calculation of p	J. Royal Stat. Soc 85 (1922) 87
70	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
71	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
72	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
73	S. Carrazza et al.	An unbiased Hessian representation for Monte Carlo PDFs	EPJC 75 (2015) 369	1505.06736
74	J. Gao and P. Nadolsky	A meta-analysis of parton distribution functions	Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014)	1401.0013
75	J. Butterworth et al.	PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II	JPG 43 (2016) 023001	1510.03865
76	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
77	T. Junk	Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics	NIM A 434 (1999) 435	hep-ex/9902006
78	A. L. Read	Presentation of search results: The CL(s) technique	JPG 28 (2002) 2693
79	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727
80	L. Demortier	P values and nuisance parameters	in Statistical issues for LHC physics. Proceedings, Workshop, PHYSTAT-LHC, Geneva, Switzerland, June 27-29,, 2007 link