CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-HIG-21-008
Direct search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying to a charm quark-antiquark pair
Abstract: A search for $\mathrm{H}\to \mathrm{c}\bar{\mathrm{c}}$ in associated VH production with leptonically decaying V (W or Z) boson is performed with 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV in the CMS experiment. Novel charm jet identification and analysis techniques are used. A search for Z $\to \mathrm{c}\bar{\mathrm{c}}$ in VZ events is used to validate the strategy and yields a first observation at a hadron collider with a significance of 5.7 standard deviations. The analysis yields $\sigma(\mathrm{VH})\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}\to \mathrm{c}\bar{\mathrm{c}}) < $ 0.94 pb at 95% CL. For $\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}$, the Higgs-charm Yukawa coupling modifier, the observed 95% CL interval (expected upper limit) is 1.1 $ < |\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}| < $ 5.5 ($|\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}| < $ 3.4) -- the most stringent to date.
Figures & Tables Summary Additional Figures & Tables References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Performance of ParticleNet (red lines) for identifying a $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}} $ pair for large-$R$ jets with $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} > 300$ GeV. The solid (dashed) line shows the efficiency to correctly identify ${{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}}$ vs. the efficiency of misidentifying quarks or gluons from the V+jets process (vs. ${{\mathrm {H}} \to {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}}}$). The gray crosses represent the three working points used in the merged-jet analysis. The performance of DeepAK15 (blue lines) used in [30] is shown for comparison.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distribution of events as a function of $S/B$ in the VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) (left) and VH (H $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) (right) searches, where $S$ and $B$ are the postfit signal and background yields, respectively, in each bin of the fitted ${m({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ or BDT discriminant distributions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data to the total background, with the uncertainty in background indicated by gray hatching. The red line represents background plus SM signal divided by background.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distribution of events as a function of $S/B$ in the VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) search, where $S$ and $B$ are the postfit signal and background yields, respectively, in each bin of the fitted ${m({{\mathrm {Z}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ or BDT discriminant distributions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data to the total background, with the uncertainty in background indicated by gray hatching. The red line represents background plus SM signal divided by background.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distribution of events as a function of $S/B$ in the VH (H $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) search, where $S$ and $B$ are the postfit signal and background yields, respectively, in each bin of the fitted ${m({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ or BDT discriminant distributions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data to the total background, with the uncertainty in background indicated by gray hatching. The red line represents background plus SM signal divided by background.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Combined ${m({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ distribution in all channels of the merged-jet analysis. The fitted ${m({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ distribution in each signal region is weighted by $S/(S+B)$, where $S$ and $B$ are the postfit VH (H $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) signal and total background yields. The lower panel shows data (points) and the fitted VH (H $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) (red) and VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) background (grey) distributions after subtracting all other processes. Error bars represent pre-subtraction statistical uncertainties on data, while the gray hatching indicates the total uncertainty on the signal and all background processes.

png pdf
Figure 4:
The 95% CL upper limits on ${\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}}$. Green and yellow bands indicate the expected 68% and 95% CL regions, respectively, under the background-only hypothesis. The vertical red line indicates the SM value $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 1.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
The relative contributions to the total uncertainty on the signal strength modifier $\mu $ for the VH (H $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) process.
Summary
In summary, a direct search for the SM Higgs boson decaying to a pair of charm quarks in the CMS experiment is presented. Novel jet reconstruction and identification tools and analysis techniques are developed for this analysis, which is validated by measuring the VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) process. The observed Z boson signal relative to the SM prediction is $\mu_{\mathrm{ VZ ( Z \to c\bar{c} ) }} = $ 1.01$_{-0.21}^{+0.23}$, with an observed (expected) significance of 5.7 (5.9) standard deviations. This is the first observation of VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{c\bar{c}} $) at a hadronic collider. The observed (expected) upper limit on $ \sigma({\mathrm{VH}})\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H\to c\bar{c}})$ is 0.94 (0.50$^{+0.22}_{-0.15}$) pb, corresponding to 14 (7.6$^{+3.4}_{-2.3}$) times the theoretical prediction for an SM Higgs boson mass of 125.38 GeV. The observed 95% CL interval on the modifier, $\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}$, for the Yukawa coupling of the Higgs boson to the charm quark is 1.1 $ < |\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}| < $ 5.5, and the expected upper limit is $|\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}| < $ 3.4. This is the most stringent limit on $\kappa_{\mathrm{c}}$ to date.
Additional Figures

png pdf
Additional Figure 1:
Scan of the test statistic $q$ as a function of $| {\kappa _{{\mathrm {c}}}} |$. Only the branching fraction $\mathcal{ \mathrm{ H \to c\bar{c}} }$ is altered as ${\kappa _{{\mathrm {c}}}}$ varies, as described in the text. The expected SM result is also shown. The dashed horizontal line corresponds to the 95% confidence level.

png pdf
Additional Figure 2:
Best fit value of the VZ (Z $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal strength modifier ${\mu _{{{\mathrm {VZ}} ({\mathrm {Z}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}}$ with its 1 and 2 standard deviation confidence intervals. The dashed vertical line indicates the SM value $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VZ}} ({\mathrm {Z}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 1.

png pdf
Additional Figure 3:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-BDT and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity signal region of the merged-jet topology in the 2L($ {\mu} {\mu} $) channel. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 4:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-BDT and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity signal region of the merged-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 5:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-BDT and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity signal region of the merged-jet topology in the 1L(${\mu}$) channel. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 6:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-BDT and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity signal region of the merged-jet topology in the 1L(e) channel. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 7:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-BDT and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity signal region of the merged-jet topology in the 0L channel. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 8:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the low-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L($ {\mu} {\mu} $) channel in 2016 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 9:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the low-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2016 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 10:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the high-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L($ {\mu} {\mu} $) channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 11:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the high-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 12:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 1L(${\mu}$) channel in 2018 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 13:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 1L(e) channel in 2018 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 14:
Post-fit distribution of the BDT discriminant in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology in the 0L channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 15:
Distribution of events as a function of $S/B$ in the resolved-jet topology of the VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) search, where $S$ and $B$ are the postfit signal and background yields, respectively, in each bin of the fitted BDT discriminant distributions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data to the total background, with the uncertainty in background indicated by gray hatching. The red line represents background plus SM signal divided by background.

png pdf
Additional Figure 16:
Distribution of events as a function of $S/B$ in the resolved-jet topology of the VZ (Z $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) search, where $S$ and $B$ are the postfit signal and background yields, respectively, in each bin of the fitted BDT discriminant distributions. The bottom panel shows the ratio of data to the total background, with the uncertainty in background indicated by gray hatching. The red line represents background plus SM signal divided by background.

png pdf
Additional Figure 17:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the low-BDT and low $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 2L($ {\mu} {\mu} $) channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 18:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the low-BDT and low $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 19:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the low-BDT and low $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 1L($ {\mu} $) channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 20:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the low-BDT and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 1L(e) channel in 2018 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 21:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-$ {N^{\mathrm {aj}}_{\text {small-}R}}$ and high $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 1L($ {\mu} $) channel in 2018 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 22:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-$ {N^{\mathrm {aj}}_{\text {small-}R}}$ and low $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 1L(e) channel in 2017 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 23:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the low-BDT and medium $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 0L channel in 2016 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 24:
Post-fit distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ in the high-$ {N^{\mathrm {aj}}_{\text {small-}R}}$ and medium $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}}$-purity control region of the merged-jet topology in the 0L channel in 2016 data. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal yield is scaled by the best fit signal strength, $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} =$ 7.7, in the filled red histogram, and the red line represents the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor of 20.

png pdf
Additional Figure 25:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsL_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the low-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ Z+LF control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 26:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsB_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the low-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ Z+HF control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 27:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsB_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the low-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ TT control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 28:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsB_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the low-$ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})}$ Z+CC control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 2L(ee) channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 29:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsB_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the W+CC control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 1L($ {\mu} $) channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 30:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsB_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the Z+HF control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 0L channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 31:
Post-fit distribution of the $CvsB_{\text {min}}$ discriminant in the Z+CC control region of the resolved-jet topology in the 0L channel in 2018 data.

png pdf
Additional Figure 32:
Distribution of the kinematic BDT in the 2L channel of the merged-jet analysis. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal is normalized to the sum of all backgrounds. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) contribution, similarly normalized, is also shown.

png pdf
Additional Figure 33:
Distribution of the kinematic BDT in the 1L channel of the merged-jet analysis. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal is normalized to the sum of all backgrounds. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) contribution, similarly normalized, is also shown.

png pdf
Additional Figure 34:
Distribution of the kinematic BDT in the 0L channel of the merged-jet analysis. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal is normalized to the sum of all backgrounds. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) contribution, similarly normalized, is also shown.

png pdf
Additional Figure 35:
Distribution of the ParticleNet cc-tagging discriminant for events with BDT scores greater than 0.55 in the 2L channel of the merged-jet analysis. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal is normalized to the sum of all backgrounds. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) contribution, similarly normalized, is also shown.

png pdf
Additional Figure 36:
Distribution of the ParticleNet cc-tagging discriminant for events with BDT scores greater than 0.7 in the 1L channel of the merged-jet analysis. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal is normalized to the sum of all backgrounds. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) contribution, similarly normalized, is also shown.

png pdf
Additional Figure 37:
Distribution of the ParticleNet cc-tagging discriminant for events with BDT scores greater than 0.55 in the 0L channel of the merged-jet analysis. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal is normalized to the sum of all backgrounds. The VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) contribution, similarly normalized, is also shown.

png pdf
Additional Figure 38:
Performance of the DeepJet-based c-tagging algorithm for small-$R$ jets, with (red) and without (blue) the application of the data-to-simulation scale factors (SFs). Each curve is an iso-efficiency curve representing a specific c-jet efficiency. The horizontal (vertical) axis represents the mis-identification rate of b jets (light quark or gluon jets). The result is obtained with a 2016 ${{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}}$ simulated sample, requiring a threshold of 20 GeV on the jet transverse momentum. The black cross represents the working point applied to the leading jet in the analysis, requiring $CvsL > $ 0.225 and $CvsB > $ 0.4.

png pdf
Additional Figure 39:
Performance of the DeepJet-based c-tagging algorithm for small-$R$ jets, with (red) and without (blue) the application of the data-to-simulation scale factors (SFs). Each curve is an iso-efficiency curve representing a specific c-jet efficiency. The horizontal (vertical) axis represents the mis-identification rate of b jets (light quark or gluon jets). The result is obtained with a 2017 ${{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}}$ simulated sample, requiring a threshold of 20 GeV on the jet transverse momentum. The black cross represents the working point applied to the leading jet in the analysis, requiring $CvsL > $ 0.225 and $CvsB > $ 0.4.

png pdf
Additional Figure 40:
Performance of the DeepJet-based c-tagging algorithm for small-$R$ jets, with (red) and without (blue) the application of the data-to-simulation scale factors (SFs). Each curve is an iso-efficiency curve representing a specific c-jet efficiency. The horizontal (vertical) axis represents the mis-identification rate of b jets (light quark or gluon jets). The result is obtained with a 2018 ${{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}}$ simulated sample, requiring a threshold of 20 GeV on the jet transverse momentum. The black cross represents the working point applied to the leading jet in the analysis, requiring $CvsL > $ 0.225 and $CvsB > $ 0.4.

png pdf
Additional Figure 41:
Distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ for simulated VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal events with 60 $ < {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})} < $ 150 GeV in the 2L channel in 2016. The red histogram corresponds to the distribution without applying the c-jet energy regression nor the kinematic fit, the green histogram corresponds to the distribution after the application of the c-jet energy regression, and the blue histogram represents the distribution after the application of both the c-jet energy regression and the kinematic fit. The dashed lines represent the fitted shapes using double crystal-ball functions.

png pdf
Additional Figure 42:
Distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ for simulated VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal events with $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})} > $ 150 GeV in the 2L channel in 2016. The red histogram corresponds to the distribution without applying the c-jet energy regression nor the kinematic fit, the green histogram corresponds to the distribution after the application of the c-jet energy regression, and the blue histogram represents the distribution after the application of both the c-jet energy regression and the kinematic fit. The dashed lines represent the fitted shapes using double crystal-ball functions.

png pdf
Additional Figure 43:
Distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ for simulated VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal events with 60 $ < {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})} < $ 150 GeV in the 2L channel in 2017. The red histogram corresponds to the distribution without applying the c-jet energy regression nor the kinematic fit, the green histogram corresponds to the distribution after the application of the c-jet energy regression, and the blue histogram represents the distribution after the application of both the c-jet energy regression and the kinematic fit. The dashed lines represent the fitted shapes using double crystal-ball functions.

png pdf
Additional Figure 44:
Distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ for simulated VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal events with $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})} > $ 150 GeV in the 2L channel in 2017. The red histogram corresponds to the distribution without applying the c-jet energy regression nor the kinematic fit, the green histogram corresponds to the distribution after the application of the c-jet energy regression, and the blue histogram represents the distribution after the application of both the c-jet energy regression and the kinematic fit. The dashed lines represent the fitted shapes using double crystal-ball functions.

png pdf
Additional Figure 45:
Distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ for simulated VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal events with 60 $ < {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})} < $ 150 GeV in the 2L channel in 2018. The red histogram corresponds to the distribution without applying the c-jet energy regression nor the kinematic fit, the green histogram corresponds to the distribution after the application of the c-jet energy regression, and the blue histogram represents the distribution after the application of both the c-jet energy regression and the kinematic fit. The dashed lines represent the fitted shapes using double crystal-ball functions.

png pdf
Additional Figure 46:
Distribution of ${m ({{\mathrm {H}} _{\text {cand}}} )}$ for simulated VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) signal events with $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{V})} > $ 150 GeV in the 2L channel in 2018. The red histogram corresponds to the distribution without applying the c-jet energy regression nor the kinematic fit, the green histogram corresponds to the distribution after the application of the c-jet energy regression, and the blue histogram represents the distribution after the application of both the c-jet energy regression and the kinematic fit. The dashed lines represent the fitted shapes using double crystal-ball functions.

png pdf
Additional Figure 47:
Distribution of the reconstructed di-jet invariant mass in the TT control region of the 1L(e) channel in 2017 data after the application of the c-jet energy regression.

png pdf
Additional Figure 48:
Distribution of the reconstructed di-jet invariant mass in the W+LF control region of the 1L(e) channel in 2017 data after the application of the c-jet energy regression.

png pdf
Additional Figure 49:
Extrapolation of the sensitivity to H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$ and H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$ decays at the HL-LHC, shown as the profile likelihood scan as a function of the signal strengths $\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}$ and $\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}})}}$. The solid symbol shows the SM expected point. The solid and dashed lines show the expected one and two standard deviation contours. The projection is based on the merged-jet topology with the following modifications: the large-$R$ jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ threshold is lowered to 200 GeV, and 3 categories enriched in H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$ decays, defined with the ParticleNet $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ discriminant, are added to allow for a simultaneous measurement of the VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) and VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) processes. Signal and background yields are scaled to an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$ and higher production cross sections at $\sqrt {s} = $ 14 TeV. The systematic uncertainties are adjusted according to the YR18 prescription [95]. Specifically, the theoretical uncertainties are reduced to half of the Run 2 values, and most of the experimental uncertainties are scaled down with the square root of the integrated luminosity. The uncertainties on the $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ and $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}} $ tagging efficiencies are constrained by the VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{ b\bar{b} }$) and VZ (Z $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) events to approximately 3% and 5%, respectively. The uncertainty on the misidentification of H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$ as H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$ is assumed to be 20%.

png pdf
Additional Figure 50:
Extrapolation of the sensitivity to H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$ and H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$ decays at the HL-LHC, shown as the profile likelihood scan as a function of the coupling modifiers ${\kappa _{{\mathrm {b}}}}$ and ${\kappa _{{\mathrm {c}}}}$. The solid symbol shows the SM expected point. The solid and dashed lines show the expected one and two standard deviation contours. The projection is based on the merged-jet topology with the following modifications: the large-$R$ jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ threshold is lowered to 200 GeV, and 3 categories enriched in H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$ decays, defined with the ParticleNet $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ discriminant, are added to allow for a simultaneous measurement of the VH (H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$) and VH (H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) processes. Signal and background yields are scaled to an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$ and higher production cross sections at $\sqrt {s} = $ 14 TeV. The systematic uncertainties are adjusted according to the YR18 prescription [95]. Specifically, the theoretical uncertainties are reduced to half of the Run 2 values, and most of the experimental uncertainties are scaled down with the square root of the integrated luminosity. The uncertainties on the $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ and $ {{\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}}} $ tagging efficiencies are constrained by the VZ (Z $\to \mathrm{ b\bar{b} }$) and VZ (Z $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$) events to approximately 3% and 5%, respectively. The uncertainty on the misidentification of H $\mathrm{ \to b\bar{b} }$ as H $\mathrm{ \to c\bar{c} }$ is assumed to be 20%.
Additional Tables

png pdf
Additional Table 1:
Event selection criteria for the signal region in the merged-jet analysis. Entries marked with "--' indicate that the variable is not used in the given channel. The values listed for kinematic variables are in units of GeV, and for angles in units of radians. Where selection differs between lepton flavors, the selection is listed as (muon, electron).

png pdf
Additional Table 2:
Event selection criteria for the signal region in the resolved-jet analysis. Entries marked with "--' indicate that the variable is not used in the given channel. The values listed for kinematic variables are in units of GeV, and for angles in units of radians. Where selection differs between lepton flavors, the selection is listed as (muon, electron).

png pdf
Additional Table 3:
The relative contributions to the total uncertainty on ${\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}}$ in the merged-jet analysis, with a best fit value $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} = $ 8.7$^{+4.6}_{-4.0}$.

png pdf
Additional Table 4:
The relative contributions to the total uncertainty on ${\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}}$ in the resolved-jet analysis, with a best fit value $ {\mu _{{{\mathrm {VH}} ({\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {c}} {\overline {\mathrm {c}}})}}} = $ $-$9.5 $\pm$ 9.6.
References
1 ATLAS Collaboration Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PLB 716 (2012) 1 1207.7214
2 CMS Collaboration Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC PLB 716 (2012) 30 CMS-HIG-12-028
1207.7235
3 CMS Collaboration A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel PLB 805 (2020) 135425 CMS-HIG-19-004
2002.06398
4 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of Higgs boson production in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRD 90 (2014) 112015 1408.7084
5 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
6 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of Higgs boson production and couplings in the four-lepton channel in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRD 91 (2015) 012006 1408.5191
7 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state PRD 89 (2014) 092007 CMS-HIG-13-002
1312.5353
8 ATLAS Collaboration Observation and measurement of Higgs boson decays to WW$ ^* $ with the ATLAS detector PRD 92 (2015) 012006 1412.2641
9 ATLAS Collaboration Study of (W/Z)H production and Higgs boson couplings using H $ \rightarrow $ WW$ ^{\ast} $ decays with the ATLAS detector JHEP 08 (2015) 137 1506.06641
10 CMS Collaboration Measurement of Higgs boson production and properties in the WW decay channel with leptonic final states JHEP 01 (2014) 096 CMS-HIG-13-023
1312.1129
11 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector JHEP 04 (2015) 117 1501.04943
12 CMS Collaboration Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons JHEP 05 (2014) 104 CMS-HIG-13-004
1401.5041
13 CMS Collaboration Observation of the Higgs boson decay to a pair of tau leptons PLB 779 (2017) 283 CMS-HIG-16-043
1708.00373
14 CMS Collaboration Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV PLB 791 (2019) 96 CMS-HIG-16-042
1806.05246
15 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and coupling strengths using pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV in the ATLAS experiment EPJC 76 (2016) 6 1507.04548
16 CMS Collaboration Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV EPJC 75 (2015) 212 CMS-HIG-14-009
1412.8662
17 CMS Collaboration Study of the mass and spin-parity of the Higgs boson candidate via its decays to Z boson pairs PRL 110 (2013) 081803 CMS-HIG-12-041
1212.6639
18 ATLAS Collaboration Evidence for the spin-0 nature of the Higgs boson using ATLAS data PLB 726 (2013) 120 1307.1432
19 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2016) 045 1606.02266
20 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments PRL 114 (2015) 191803 1503.07589
21 CMS Collaboration Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2017) 047 CMS-HIG-16-041
1706.09936
22 ATLAS Collaboration Combined measurement of differential and total cross sections in the $ H \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ and the $ H \rightarrow ZZ^* \rightarrow 4\ell $ decay channels at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 786 (2018) 114 1805.10197
23 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the $ H\rightarrow ZZ^* \rightarrow 4\ell $ and $ H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma $ channels with $ \sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV pp collisions using the ATLAS detector PLB 784 (2018) 345 1806.00242
24 CMS Collaboration Search for the Higgs boson decaying to two muons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PRL 122 (2019) 021801 CMS-HIG-17-019
1807.06325
25 D. Ghosh, R. S. Gupta, and G. Perez Is the Higgs mechanism of fermion mass generation a fact? A Yukawa-less first-two-generation model PLB 755 (2016) 504 1508.01501
26 F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco, M. N. Rebelo, and J. I. Silva-Marcos What if the masses of the first two quark families are not generated by the standard model Higgs boson? PRD 94 (2016) 115031 1602.08011
27 R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and J. Zupan Flavor violating Higgs decays JHEP 03 (2013) 026 1209.1397
28 W. Altmannshofer et al. Collider signatures of flavorful Higgs bosons PRD 94 (2016) 115032 1610.02398
29 ATLAS Collaboration Search for the decay of the Higgs boson to charm quarks with the ATLAS experiment PRL 120 (2018) 211802 1802.04329
30 CMS Collaboration A search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying to charm quarks JHEP 03 (2020) 131 CMS-HIG-18-031
1912.01662
31 ATLAS Collaboration Direct constraint on the Higgs-charm coupling from a search for Higgs boson decays into charm quarks with the ATLAS detector (1, 2022). Submitted to EPJC 2201.11428
32 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
33 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
34 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
35 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
36 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P06015 CMS-MUO-16-001
1804.04528
37 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
38 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
39 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
40 CMS Collaboration Performance of reconstruction and identification of $ \tau $ leptons decaying to hadrons and $ \nu_\tau $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P10005 CMS-TAU-16-003
1809.02816
41 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
42 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector JINST 14 (2019) P07004 CMS-JME-17-001
1903.06078
43 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
44 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
45 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
46 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup per particle identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
47 CMS Collaboration Mass regression of highly-boosted jets using graph neural networks CDS
48 H. Qu and L. Gouskos ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds PRD 101 (2020) 056019 1902.08570
49 M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam Towards an understanding of jet substructure JHEP 09 (2013) 029 1307.0007
50 J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC PRL 100 (2008) 242001 0802.2470
51 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4 --- A simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
52 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
53 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
54 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
55 K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi MINLO: Multi-scale improved NLO JHEP 10 (2012) 155 1206.3572
56 G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano HW$ ^{\pm} $/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO JHEP 10 (2013) 083 1306.2542
57 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector CERN (2016) 1610.07922
58 G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano Higher-order QCD effects for associated WH production and decay at the LHC JHEP 04 (2014) 039 1312.1669
59 G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano Associated ZH production at hadron colliders: the fully differential NNLO QCD calculation PLB 740 (2015) 51 1407.4747
60 G. Ferrera, M. Grazzini, and F. Tramontano Associated WH production at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO PRL 107 (2011) 152003 1107.1164
61 G. Ferrera, G. Somogyi, and F. Tramontano Associated production of a Higgs boson decaying into bottom quarks at the LHC in full NNLO QCD PLB 780 (2018) 346 1705.10304
62 O. Brein, R. V. Harlander, and T. J. E. Zirke vh@nnlo --- Higgs Strahlung at hadron colliders CPC 184 (2013) 998 1210.5347
63 R. V. Harlander, S. Liebler, and T. Zirke Higgs Strahlung at the Large Hadron Collider in the 2-Higgs-doublet model JHEP 02 (2014) 023 1307.8122
64 A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit, and A. Muck HAWK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders CPC 195 (2015) 161 1412.5390
65 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
66 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
67 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
68 R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli Single-top $ t $-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO JHEP 09 (2012) 130 1207.5391
69 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
70 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
71 M. Czakon et al. Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW JHEP 10 (2017) 186 1705.04105
72 T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi W+W-, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX JHEP 11 (2011) 078 1107.5051
73 M. Grazzini et al. NNLO QCD + NLO EW with Matrix+OpenLoops: precise predictions for vector-boson pair production JHEP 02 (2020) 087 1912.00068
74 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
75 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
76 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
77 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
78 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
79 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
80 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
81 T. Plehn, G. P. Salam, and M. Spannowsky Fat jets for a light Higgs PRL 104 (2010) 111801 0910.5472
82 CMS Collaboration Identification of highly Lorentz-boosted heavy particles using graph neural networks and new mass decorrelation techniques CDS
83 A. Butter et al. The Machine Learning Landscape of Top Taggers SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 014 1902.09914
84 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques JINST 15 (2020) P06005 CMS-JME-18-002
2004.08262
85 E. Bols et al. Jet Flavour Classification Using DeepJet JINST 15 (2020) P12012 2008.10519
86 CMS Collaboration Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9/fb of data from proton-proton collisions at 13TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector CDS
87 CMS Collaboration A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV (11, 2021). Submitted to JINST CMS-BTV-20-001
2111.03027
88 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
89 CMS Collaboration Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks PRL 121 (2018) 121801 CMS-HIG-18-016
1808.08242
90 The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, The LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005
91 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
92 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CL(s) technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
93 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
94 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties CERN (2013) 1307.1347
95 A. Dainese, M. Mangano, A. Meyer, A. Nisati, G. Salam, M. Vesterinen (editors) Report on the Physics at the HL-LHC, and Perspectives for the HE-LHC HL/HE-LHC Workshop : Workshop on the Physics of HL-LHC, and Perspectives at HE-LHC, Geneva 2018
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN