CMS-PAS-HIG-20-005

CMS-PAS-HIG-20-005
Search for Higgs boson pair production in the four b quark final state
CMS Collaboration
June 2021

Abstract: A search for the production of pairs of Higgs bosons in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is presented, using a data sample collected with the CMS detector at the LHC and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of about 138 fb $^{-1}$ . The search investigates both the gluon and vector boson fusion production mechanisms for Higgs boson pairs in the final state with four b quarks. No evidence of signal is found, and an observed (expected) upper limit on the Higgs boson pair production cross section of 3.6 (7.3) times the standard model prediction is set. Results are also interpreted under assumptions involving anomalous Higgs boson couplings. At a 95% confidence level, the Higgs field self-coupling is constrained to be within $-2.3$ and $9.4$ times the standard model expectation, and the coupling of two Higgs bosons to two vector bosons is constrained to be within $-0.1$ and $2.2$ .
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PRL 129 (2022) 081802. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures	Summary	Additional Figures	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Distributions of the events observed in the ${A_\text {SR}^{4\mathrm{b}}}$ signal region. The upper and lower rows show the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ and VBF categories, respectively. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm{H} \mathrm{H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown on the left and the total number of events in the anomalous ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ -like category on the right. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ (VBF) signal contributions is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Distributions of the events observed in the ${A_\text {SR}^{4\mathrm{b}}}$ signal region. The upper and lower rows show the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ and VBF categories, respectively. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm{H} \mathrm{H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown on the left and the total number of events in the anomalous ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ -like category on the right. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ (VBF) signal contributions is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Distributions of the events observed in the ${A_\text {SR}^{4\mathrm{b}}}$ signal region. The upper and lower rows show the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ and VBF categories, respectively. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm{H} \mathrm{H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown on the left and the total number of events in the anomalous ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ -like category on the right. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ (VBF) signal contributions is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: Distributions of the events observed in the ${A_\text {SR}^{4\mathrm{b}}}$ signal region. The upper and lower rows show the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ and VBF categories, respectively. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm{H} \mathrm{H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown on the left and the total number of events in the anomalous ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ -like category on the right. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ (VBF) signal contributions is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Figure 1-d: Distributions of the events observed in the ${A_\text {SR}^{4\mathrm{b}}}$ signal region. The upper and lower rows show the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ and VBF categories, respectively. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm{H} \mathrm{H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown on the left and the total number of events in the anomalous ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ -like category on the right. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ${\mathrm{g} \mathrm{g} \text {F}}$ (VBF) signal contributions is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Figure 2: Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on cross section times branching fraction as a function of ${\kappa _{\lambda}}$ (left) and ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ (right). The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The pink lines denote the theoretical cross section expectation assuming that other couplings not indicated on the horizontal axis are set to the SM prediction.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on cross section times branching fraction as a function of ${\kappa _{\lambda}}$ (left) and ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ (right). The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The pink lines denote the theoretical cross section expectation assuming that other couplings not indicated on the horizontal axis are set to the SM prediction.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on cross section times branching fraction as a function of ${\kappa _{\lambda}}$ (left) and ${\kappa _\text {2V}}$ (right). The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The pink lines denote the theoretical cross section expectation assuming that other couplings not indicated on the horizontal axis are set to the SM prediction.

Summary

A search for the production of Higgs boson pairs in the four b quarks decay channel is presented. The search investigates the production modes via gluon and vector boson fusion, and uses a data sample collected in proton-proton collisions at

$\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV that corresponds to 138 fb

$^{-1}$ . The data are found to be statistically compatible with the background-only hypothesis, and upper limits at the 95% confidence level on the signal cross sections are set. The observed (expected) upper limit on the HH production cross section corresponds to 3.6 (7.3) times the SM prediction. The value of the Higgs bosons self-coupling normalised to the SM expectation (

$\kappa_{\lambda}$ ) is observed (expected) to be in the range

$-2.3 < \kappa_{\lambda} < 9.4$ (

$-5.0 < \kappa_{\lambda} < 12.0$ ), and the value of the coupling of Higgs bosons pairs to vector bosons pairs, normalised to the SM expectation (

$\kappa_{2\mathrm{V}}$ ), to be in the range

$-0.1 < \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} < 2.2$ (

$-0.4 < \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} < 2.5$ ). These results improve by more than a factor of 3 the sensitivity of previous measurements on the ggF cross section in the same channel and put the most stringent constraints to date on the ggF and VBF production cross sections.

Additional Figures
png pdf	Additional Figure 1: Distribution of data events selected in the three (top row) and four (bottom row) b-tagged jet categories for events recorded in 2016 (left column) and 2017 and 2018 (right column) as function of the masses of the two Higgs boson candidates. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-a: Distribution of data events selected in the three b-tagged jet categories for events recorded in 2016 as function of the masses of the two Higgs boson candidates. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-b: Distribution of data events selected in the three b-tagged jet categories for events recorded in 2017 and 2018 as function of the masses of the two Higgs boson candidates. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-c: Distribution of data events selected in the four b-tagged jet categories for events recorded in 2016 as function of the masses of the two Higgs boson candidates. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 1-d: Distribution of data events selected in the four b-tagged jet categories for events recorded in 2017 and 2018 as function of the masses of the two Higgs boson candidates. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2: Distribution of simulated signal events selected for the SM ggF production (top row) and $\kappa _\text {2V}=$ 2 VBF production (bottom row) as function of the two Higgs boson candidates masses. The simulations correspond to the events expected for the 2016 data taking (left column) and 2017 and 2018 (right column). The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-a: Distribution of simulated signal events selected for the SM ggF production as function of the two Higgs boson candidates masses. The simulations correspond to the events expected for the 2016 data taking. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-b: Distribution of simulated signal events selected for the SM ggF production as function of the two Higgs boson candidates masses. The simulations correspond to the events expected for the 2017 and 2018 data taking. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-c: Distribution of simulated signal events selected for the $\kappa _\text {2V}=$ 2 VBF production as function of the two Higgs boson candidates masses. The simulations correspond to the events expected for the 2016 data taking. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 2-d: Distribution of simulated signal events selected for the $\kappa _\text {2V}=$ 2 VBF production as function of the two Higgs boson candidates masses. The simulations correspond to the events expected for the 2017 and 2018 data taking. The blue and green circles correspond to the analysis and validation regions, respectively, denoted by the letters A and V. The inner circle corresponds to the signal region while the ring around it defines the control region used for the background modeling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3: Distributions of the events observed in the $A_\text {SR}^{4 {\mathrm {b}}}$ signal region for the 2016 data. The top and bottom row show the ggF and VBF categories, respectively. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown on the left and the total number of events in the anomalous $\kappa _\text {2V}$ -like category on the right. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-a: The output of the BDT discriminant for the low-mass high-mass category in the $A_\text {SR}^{4 {\mathrm {b}}}$ signal region for the 2016 data in the ggF category. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-b: The output of the BDT discriminant for the low-mass high-mass category in the $A_\text {SR}^{4 {\mathrm {b}}}$ signal region for the 2016 data in the ggF category. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-c: The $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category in the $A_\text {SR}^{4 {\mathrm {b}}}$ signal region for the 2016 data in the VBF category. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Additional Figure 3-d: The total number of events in the anomalous $\kappa _\text {2V}$ -like category in the $A_\text {SR}^{4 {\mathrm {b}}}$ signal region for the 2016 data in the VBF category. Data are represented by points with error bars, the expected background contribution is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas), while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked.
png pdf	Additional Figure 4: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction. The top and bottom row show the ggF and VBF categories, respectively, and the data correspond to the 2016 dataset. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown. The anomalous $\kappa _\text {2V}$ -like category is not shown because no shape correction is applied for it since the overall number of observed events is used to perform a counting experiment. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-a: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction in the ggF category. The data correspond to the 2016 dataset. The output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-b: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction in the ggF category. The data correspond to the 2016 dataset. The output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the high-mass category. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 4-c: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction in the VBF category. The data correspond to the 2016 dataset. The $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 5: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction. The top and bottom row show the ggF and VBF categories, respectively, and the data correspond to the 2017 and 2018 datasets. For the former, the output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category on the left and for the high-mass category on the right. For the latter, the $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown. The anomalous $\kappa _\text {2V}$ -like category is not shown because no shape correction is applied for it since the overall number of observed events is used to perform a counting experiment. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-a: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction in the ggF category. The data correspond to the 2017 and 2018 datasets. The output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the low-mass category. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-b: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction in the ggF category. The data correspond to the 2017 and 2018 datasets. The output of the BDT discriminant is shown for the high-mass category. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 5-c: Prediction of the background distribution obtained directly from the $A_\text {SR}^{3 {\mathrm {b}}}$ region without the application of the BDT reweighting correction in the VBF category. The data correspond to the 2017 and 2018 datasets. The $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ distribution in the SM-like category is shown. Data are represented by points with error bars, while the ggF (VBF) signal contribution is shown in blue (red) and not stacked. The background prediction without the shape correction is represented by the shaded blue histograms with the associated systematic uncertainties (dashed areas).
png pdf	Additional Figure 6: Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon fusion Higgs boson pair production cross section for different combinations of Higgs boson couplings in the effective Lagrangian parametrization. The numbers from 1 to 12 denote the shape benchmarks defined in Ref. [54], corresponding to points in the five-dimensional parameter space with characteristic kinematic properties of the ${\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}$ system. The leading order simulation is reweighted to match the $m_{{\mathrm {H}} {\mathrm {H}}}$ spectrum at the next-to-leading order as predicted by simulation described in Ref. [55]. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7: Expected and observed likelihood scan as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ (left) and $\kappa _\text {2V}$ (right) couplings. All the couplings that are not displayed in the figure are fixed to their SM prediction.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-a: Expected and observed likelihood scan as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ coupling. All the couplings that are not displayed in the figure are fixed to their SM prediction.
png pdf	Additional Figure 7-b: Expected and observed likelihood scan as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ coupling. All the couplings that are not displayed in the figure are fixed to their SM prediction.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8: Expected (left column) and observed (right column) likelihood scans as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming all the other couplings to be fixed to their SM prediction. The top row shows the contribution of the ggF (red) and VBF (blue) categories and their combination (black). The bottom row shows the contribution of the low- (red) and high-mass (blue) ggF categories, and the overall combination of all the ggF and VBF categories (black). For all the curves, the 2016, 2017 and 2018 datasets are combined.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-a: Expected likelihood scans as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming all the other couplings to be fixed to their SM prediction. The plot shows the contribution of the ggF (red) and VBF (blue) categories and their combination (black). The 2016, 2017 and 2018 datasets are combined.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-b: Observed likelihood scans as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming all the other couplings to be fixed to their SM prediction. The plot shows the contribution of the ggF (red) and VBF (blue) categories and their combination (black). The 2016, 2017 and 2018 datasets are combined.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-c: Expected likelihood scans as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming all the other couplings to be fixed to their SM prediction. The plot shows the contribution of the low- (red) and high-mass (blue) ggF categories, and the overall combination of all the ggF and VBF categories (black). The 2016, 2017 and 2018 datasets are combined.
png pdf	Additional Figure 8-d: Observed likelihood scans as a function of the $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming all the other couplings to be fixed to their SM prediction. The plot shows the contribution of the low- (red) and high-mass (blue) ggF categories, and the overall combination of all the ggF and VBF categories (black). The 2016, 2017 and 2018 datasets are combined.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9: Expected (left) and observed (right) regions allowed at the 68 and 95% CL as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ and $\kappa _\text {V}$ couplings, assuming the $\kappa _{{\mathrm {t}}}$ and $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings to be fixed to 1. The circle denotes the best-fit hypothesis while the star represents the SM prediction. All results shown in this note do not include single Higgs boson production measurements that constrain the $\kappa _\text {V}$ coupling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-a: Expected regions allowed at the 68 and 95% CL as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ and $\kappa _\text {V}$ couplings, assuming the $\kappa _{{\mathrm {t}}}$ and $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings to be fixed to 1. The circle denotes the best-fit hypothesis while the star represents the SM prediction. All results shown in this note do not include single Higgs boson production measurements that constrain the $\kappa _\text {V}$ coupling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 9-b: Observed regions allowed at the 68 and 95% CL as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ and $\kappa _\text {V}$ couplings, assuming the $\kappa _{{\mathrm {t}}}$ and $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings to be fixed to 1. The circle denotes the best-fit hypothesis while the star represents the SM prediction. All results shown in this note do not include single Higgs boson production measurements that constrain the $\kappa _\text {V}$ coupling.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10: Expected (left) and observed (right) regions allowed at the 68 and 95% CL as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ and $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming the $\kappa _{{\mathrm {t}}}$ and $\kappa _\text {V}$ couplings to be fixed to 1. The circle denotes the best-fit hypothesis while the star represents the SM prediction.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10-a: Expected regions allowed at the 68 and 95% CL as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ and $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming the $\kappa _{{\mathrm {t}}}$ and $\kappa _\text {V}$ couplings to be fixed to 1. The circle denotes the best-fit hypothesis while the star represents the SM prediction.
png pdf	Additional Figure 10-b: Observed regions allowed at the 68 and 95% CL as a function of the $\kappa _\text {2V}$ and $\kappa _{\lambda}$ couplings, assuming the $\kappa _{{\mathrm {t}}}$ and $\kappa _\text {V}$ couplings to be fixed to 1. The circle denotes the best-fit hypothesis while the star represents the SM prediction.
png pdf	Additional Figure 11: Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the standard model Higgs boson pair (HH) production signal strength ( $\mu$ ) by year: 2016 (top row), 2017-2018 (center row) and combined (bottom row).
png pdf	Additional Figure 12: Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the standard model Higgs boson pair (HH) production signal strength ( $\mu$ ) by category: ggF Low $\mathrm {m_{HH}}$ (first row), ggF High $\mathrm {m_{HH}}$ (second row), VBF categories (third row), and combined (fourth row).
png pdf	Additional Figure 13: Signal strength ( $\mu$ ) of the SM ggF and VBF production modes. The solid (dashed) line denotes the contour corresponding to the 68% (95%) confidence levels. The circle represents the best-fit value while the star represents the SM expectation.
png pdf	Additional Figure 14: Distribution of the expected signal to background ratio for events selected in the categories of the analysis. The leftmost bin also includes events whose value of the signal-to-background ratio are below the represented range (underflow).

References
1	F. Englert and R. Brout	Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons	PRL 13 (Aug, 1964) 321
2	P. W. Higgs	Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons	PRL 13 (Oct, 1964) 508
3	G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble	Global conservation laws and massless particles	PRL 13 (Nov, 1964) 585
4	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
5	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
6	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
7	S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier, and M. Spira	Neutral Higgs boson pair production at hadron colliders: QCD corrections	PRD 58 (1998) 115012	hep-ph/9805244
8	S. Borowka et al.	Higgs Boson Pair Production in Gluon Fusion at Next-to-Leading Order with Full Top-Quark Mass Dependence	PRL 117 (2016) 012001	1604.06447
9	J. Baglio et al.	Gluon fusion into Higgs pairs at NLO QCD and the top mass scheme	EPJC 79 (2019) 459	1811.05692
10	D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli	Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD	PRL 111 (2013) 201801	1309.6594
11	D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li, and J. Wang	Threshold resummation effects in Higgs boson pair production at the LHC	JHEP 07 (2013) 169	1301.1245
12	D. de Florian and J. Mazzitelli	Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC	JHEP 09 (2015) 053	1505.07122
13	M. Grazzini et al.	Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects	JHEP 05 (2018) 059	1803.02463
14	F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg	Vector-Boson Fusion Higgs Pair Production at N $^3$ LO	PRD 98 (2018) 114016	1811.07906
15	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for pair production of Higgs bosons in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 01 (2019) 030	1804.06174
16	CMS Collaboration	Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the $\mathrm{b\overline{b}b\overline{b}}$ final state at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 04 (2019) 112	CMS-HIG-17-017 1810.11854
17	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the ${b\bar{b}\tau^+\tau^-}$ decay channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PRL 121 (2018) 191801	1808.00336
18	CMS Collaboration	Search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two bottom quarks and two tau leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt s =$ 13TeV	PLB 778 (2018) 101	CMS-HIG-17-002 1707.02909
19	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b}WW^{*}$ decay mode at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 04 (2019) 092	1811.04671
20	CMS Collaboration	Search for resonant and nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in the $\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathit{\ell \nu \ell \nu}$ final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JHEP 01 (2018) 054	CMS-HIG-17-006 1708.04188
21	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma b\bar{b}$ final state with 13 $TeV pp$ collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment	JHEP 11 (2018) 040	1807.04873
22	CMS Collaboration	Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma\mathrm{b\overline{b}}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	PLB 788 (2019) 7	CMS-HIG-17-008 1806.00408
23	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma WW^{*}$ channel using $pp$ collision data recorded at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 78 (2018) 1007	1807.08567
24	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $WW^{()}WW^{()}$ decay channel using ATLAS data recorded at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JHEP 05 (2019) 124	1811.11028
25	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $bb\ell\nu\ell\nu$ final state with the ATLAS detector in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PLB 801 (2020) 135145	1908.06765
26	CMS Collaboration	Search for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in final states with two bottom quarks and two photons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 03 (2021) 257	CMS-HIG-19-018 2011.12373
27	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for the $HH \rightarrow b \bar{b} b \bar{b}$ process via vector-boson fusion production using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 07 (2020) 108	2001.05178
28	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group	Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector	CERN (2016)	1610.07922
29	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
30	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
31	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
32	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- $k_t$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
33	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
34	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
35	CMS Collaboration	Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data	JINST 15 (2020) P09018	CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503
36	CMS Collaboration	Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P05011	CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158
37	E. Bols et al.	Jet Flavour Classification Using DeepJet	JINST 15 (2020) P12012	2008.10519
38	S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re	NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG	JHEP 07 (2008) 060	0805.4802
39	P. Nason	A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
40	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
41	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
42	M. Czakon and A. Mitov	Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders	CPC 185 (2014) 2930	1112.5675
43	J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams	Vector boson pair production at the LHC	JHEP 07 (2011) 018	1105.0020
44	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4--a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
45	CMS Collaboration	Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003	CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
46	CMS Collaboration	A Deep Neural Network for Simultaneous Estimation of b Jet Energy and Resolution	Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 4 (2020) 10	CMS-HIG-18-027 1912.06046
47	A. Rogozhnikov	Reweighting with Boosted Decision Trees	J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 762 (2016) 012036	1608.05806
48	CMS Collaboration	Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS	Submitted to EPJC	CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927
49	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
50	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
51	T. Chen and C. Guestrin	XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system	in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, p. 785 ACM, New York, NY, USA
52	T. Junk	Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics	NIMA 434 (1999) 435	hep-ex/9902006
53	A. L. Read	Presentation of search results: the $CL_s$ technique	JPG 28 (2002) 2693
54	A. Carvalho et al.	Higgs Pair Production: Choosing Benchmarks With Cluster Analysis	JHEP 04 (2016) 126	1507.02245
55	G. Buchalla et al.	Higgs boson pair production in non-linear Effective Field Theory with full $m_{\mathrm{t}}$ -dependence at NLO QCD	JHEP 09 (2018) 057	1806.05162