Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-HIG-22-009 | ||
| Measurement of the signal strength of the Higgs boson decaying to bottom quarks and produced from Vector Boson Fusion using proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 8 November 2022 | ||
| Abstract: A measurement of the signal strength of Higgs boson production via the vector boson fusion (VBF) process and its subsequent decay into a pair of bottom quarks is presented. The analysis uses the proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 91 fb$ ^{-1} $. Treating gluon-gluon fusion as a background and constraining its rate within the theoretical and the experimental uncertainties to the standard model prediction (SM), the signal strength of the VBF process, defined as the ratio of the observed signal rate to that predicted in the SM, is measured to be $ \mu_{\mathrm{qqH}}= $ 0.97 $ ^{+0.53}_{-0.45} $. The VBF signal is observed with a significance of 2.4$ \sigma $ relative to the background prediction, while the expected significance is 2.7$ \sigma $. The inclusive measurement of the Higgs boson production followed by the Higgs boson decay into bottom quarks yields the best-fit value for the signal strength of $ \mu_{\mathrm{Hb\bar{b}}}= $ 0.92 $ ^{+0.45}_{-0.39} $, corresponding to an observed (expected) significance of 2.5 (2.9)$ \sigma $. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to JHEP. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. |
||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagram of the VBF production of Higgs boson and subsequently decaying to a pair of b quarks. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
The invariant mass $ m_{\rm bb} $ of the b-jet pair in simulated $ \rm{qqH\rightarrow qqb\bar{b}} $ events before (in orange) and after (in blue) the application of the b-jet energy regression in the Tight 2016 (left) and Loose 2016 (right) analysis samples. A single sided Crystal Ball (CB) function is used to fit the distributions. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
The invariant mass $ m_{\rm bb} $ of the b-jet pair in simulated $ \rm{qqH\rightarrow qqb\bar{b}} $ events before (in orange) and after (in blue) the application of the b-jet energy regression in the Tight 2016 (left) and Loose 2016 (right) analysis samples. A single sided Crystal Ball (CB) function is used to fit the distributions. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
The invariant mass $ m_{\rm bb} $ of the b-jet pair in simulated $ \rm{qqH\rightarrow qqb\bar{b}} $ events before (in orange) and after (in blue) the application of the b-jet energy regression in the Tight 2016 (left) and Loose 2016 (right) analysis samples. A single sided Crystal Ball (CB) function is used to fit the distributions. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
The distributions of the VBF BDT outputs in data and simulated samples in the Tight 2016 (left) and Tight 2018 (right) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
The distributions of the VBF BDT outputs in data and simulated samples in the Tight 2016 (left) and Tight 2018 (right) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
The distributions of the VBF BDT outputs in data and simulated samples in the Tight 2016 (left) and Tight 2018 (right) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-e:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-f:
The distributions of the BDT outputs: $ D_{\rm{ggF}} $ (upper plots), $ D_{\rm{VBF}} $ (middle plots) and $ D_{\rm{Z}} $ (lower plots) in data and simulated samples in the Loose 2016 (left plots) and Loose 2018 (right plots) analysis samples. Data events (points), dominated by the QCD multijet background, are compared to the VBF (red solid line), ggF (blue dashed line) and Z + jets (green hatched area) processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions from simulations with overlaid parametric fits (blue solid lines) for the Tight 2016 analysis sample. Left: the fitted $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution in the signal combining the VBF (yellow histogram) and ggF (pink) contributions. Right: The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution in simulated Z + jets background (black points) combining the electroweak (blue histogram) and Drell-Yan (green histogram) production. The dotted lines in each plot represents the component of the 2nd order Bernstein polynomial used to approximate contribution from the wrong pairing of jets. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions from simulations with overlaid parametric fits (blue solid lines) for the Tight 2016 analysis sample. Left: the fitted $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution in the signal combining the VBF (yellow histogram) and ggF (pink) contributions. Right: The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution in simulated Z + jets background (black points) combining the electroweak (blue histogram) and Drell-Yan (green histogram) production. The dotted lines in each plot represents the component of the 2nd order Bernstein polynomial used to approximate contribution from the wrong pairing of jets. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions from simulations with overlaid parametric fits (blue solid lines) for the Tight 2016 analysis sample. Left: the fitted $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution in the signal combining the VBF (yellow histogram) and ggF (pink) contributions. Right: The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution in simulated Z + jets background (black points) combining the electroweak (blue histogram) and Drell-Yan (green histogram) production. The dotted lines in each plot represents the component of the 2nd order Bernstein polynomial used to approximate contribution from the wrong pairing of jets. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2016 1 (left), Tight 2016 2 (central) and Tight 2016 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2016 1 (left), Tight 2016 2 (central) and Tight 2016 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2016 1 (left), Tight 2016 2 (central) and Tight 2016 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 6-c:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2016 1 (left), Tight 2016 2 (central) and Tight 2016 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2018 1 (left), Tight 2018 2 (central) and Tight 2018 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2018 1 (left), Tight 2018 2 (central) and Tight 2018 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2018 1 (left), Tight 2018 2 (central) and Tight 2018 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 7-c:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions in three event categories: Tight 2018 1 (left), Tight 2018 2 (central) and Tight 2018 3 (right). The points indicate data, the blue solid curve corresponds to the fitted non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty band. The total fitted signal+background model includes resonant contributions from $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting non-resonant component with the fitted resonant contribution of the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ background (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal (green curve). |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions for the selected collision events (black points) for the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ sensitive categories: Loose 2016 Z2 (left) and Loose 2018 Z2 (right). The blue solid curve corresponds to the expected non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty in the prediction. The total signal+background model includes resonant contributions from Zbb and Hbb and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting the expected non-resonant component. The expectations from only $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal and the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ are presented by the green and red curves respectively. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-a:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions for the selected collision events (black points) for the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ sensitive categories: Loose 2016 Z2 (left) and Loose 2018 Z2 (right). The blue solid curve corresponds to the expected non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty in the prediction. The total signal+background model includes resonant contributions from Zbb and Hbb and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting the expected non-resonant component. The expectations from only $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal and the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ are presented by the green and red curves respectively. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-b:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distributions for the selected collision events (black points) for the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ sensitive categories: Loose 2016 Z2 (left) and Loose 2018 Z2 (right). The blue solid curve corresponds to the expected non-resonant component of the background, dominated by QCD multijets; the shaded (cyan) band represents 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty in the prediction. The total signal+background model includes resonant contributions from Zbb and Hbb and the non-resonant component; it is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares the distribution of data after subtracting the expected non-resonant component. The expectations from only $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal and the $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ are presented by the green and red curves respectively. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
The $ m_{\rm bb} $ distribution after weighted combination of all categories in the analysis weighted with S/(S+B). The blue solid curve corresponds to the non-resonant component of background, dominated by QCD multijets. The shaded band represent 1$ \sigma $ uncertainty in the non-resonant component. The total signal+background model, including $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ resonant components and the non-resonant one is represented by the magenta curve. The lower panel compares distribution of data after subtracting the non-resonant component of the model with expectation from sum of the resonant components: $ \rm{Z\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ (red curve) and $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ signal only expectation (green curve). |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
The HLT and offline selection requirement in the four analyzed samples. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Event categorization used in the analysis, a total of 18. The name of the categories are given in the first column. The BDT score boundaries defining each category are given in the second column and the targeted process is indicated in the third column. |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Event yields for various categories of the analyzed 2016 data corresponding to $ {\cal L}= $ 36.3 fb$ ^{-1} $, in data compared to the expected numbers of events from the simulated samples of signal and background other than QCD multijets process. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. |
png pdf |
Table 4:
Event yields for various categories of the analyzed 2018 data corresponding to $ {\cal L}= $ 54.5 fb$ ^{-1} $, in data compared to the expected numbers of events from the simulated samples of signal and background other than QCD multijets process. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. |
png pdf |
Table 5:
The functional forms used to fit the continuum component of the background in various analysis categories. The notation "exp" stands for the exponential function, "exp$ \cdot $pol1 (pol2)" denoted the product of an exponential function and a polynomial of the first (second) order. |
| Summary |
| A measurement of the Higgs boson produced in the vector boson fusion (VBF) process and decaying to bottom quarks has been performed on data sets collected by the CMS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 91 fb$ ^{-1} $. The analysis employs boosted decision trees (BDT) to discriminate signal against major background processes - QCD multijet production and Z + jets events. The training of BDTs is performed exploiting kinematic properties of VBF jets, information on b-tagged jets assigned to the $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ decay and global event shape variables. Based on the BDT response, multiple event categories are introduced, targeting VBF, gluon-gluon fusion (ggF) and Z + jets processes to achieve maximum sensitivity for the signal. While VBF categories have the highest signal-to-background ratio, the Z + jets categories constrain the largest peaking background. Introduction of ggF categories enhanced the sensitivity to the inclusive production of the Higgs boson in association with two jets. The rate of VBF production followed by the $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ decay has been measured with the ggF contribution constrained within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties to the SM prediction. The signal has been observed with a significance of 2.4$ \sigma $, compared to the expected significance of 2.7$ \sigma $. The $ \rm{qqH\rightarrow qqb\bar{b}} $ signal strength, defined as the measured signal rate of the $ \rm{qqH\rightarrow qqb\bar{b}} $ process relative to the prediction in the SM, is $ \mu_{\mathrm{qqH}}= $ 0.97 $ ^{+0.53}_{-0.45} $. The inclusive Higgs boson production in association with two jets, followed by $ \rm{H\rightarrow b\bar{b}} $ decay has been measured by treating the ggF contribution as a part of signal. The measured inclusive signal strength is $ \mu_{\mathrm{Hb\bar{b}}}= $ 0.92 $ ^{+0.45}_{-0.39} $, corresponding to an observed (expected) significance of 2.5 (2.9)$ \sigma $. |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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 | A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, and M. Spira | HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension | Comput. Phys. Commun. 108 (1998) 56 | hep-ph/9704448 |
| 11 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration | Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector | technical report, CERN, 10, 2016 link |
1610.07922 |
| 12 | CMS Collaboration | Inclusive search for highly boosted Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 12 (2020) 085 | CMS-HIG-19-003 2006.13251 |
| 13 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of WH and ZH production in the $ H \rightarrow b\bar{b} $ decay channel in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | Eur. Phys. J. C 81 ), no.~2, 178, 2021 link |
2007.02873 |
| 14 | CMS Collaboration | Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks | PRL 121 (2018) 121801 | CMS-HIG-18-016 1808.08242 |
| 15 | F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and M. Zaro | Higgs characterisation via vector-boson fusion and associated production: NLO and parton-shower effects | EPJC 74 (2014) 2710 | 1311.1829 |
| 16 | CMS Collaboration | Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion and decaying to $ b \overline{b} $ | PRD 92 (2015) 0 | CMS-HIG-14-004 1506.01010 |
| 17 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quarks from vector boson fusion production with the ATLAS experiment at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV | EPJC 81 (2021) 537 | 2011.08280 |
| 18 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 19 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS high level trigger | EPJC 46 (2006) 605 | hep-ex/0512077 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 22 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 23 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 24 | 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 |
| 25 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment | JINST 8 (2013) P04013 | CMS-BTV-12-001 1211.4462 |
| 26 | 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 |
| 27 | E. Bols et al. | Jet Flavour Classification Using DeepJet | JINST 15 (2020) P12012 | 2008.10519 |
| 28 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 29 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 30 | 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 |
| 31 | P. Nason and C. Oleari | NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG | JHEP 02 (2010) 037 | 0911.5299 |
| 32 | B. Cabouat and T. Sj\"ostrand | Some Dipole Shower Studies | EPJC 78 (2018) 226 | 1710.00391 |
| 33 | J. Bellm et al. | Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note | EPJC 76 (2016) 196 | 1512.01178 |
| 34 | E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini | Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM | JHEP 02 (2012) 088 | 1111.2854 |
| 35 | 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 |
| 36 | M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani | Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions | JHEP 01 (2007) 013 | hep-ph/0611129 |
| 37 | J. M. Lindert et al. | Precise predictions for $ V+ $ jets dark matter backgrounds | EPJC 77 (2017) 829 | 1705.04664 |
| 38 | T. Sjöstrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 39 | 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 |
| 40 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions for the LHC Run II | JHEP 04 (2015) 040 | 1410.8849 |
| 41 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 42 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4---a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 43 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | JINST 15 (2020) P09018 | CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503 |
| 44 | 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 |
| 45 | P. Speckmayer, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and H. Voss | The toolkit for multivariate data analysis, TMVA 4 | J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 219 (2010) 032057 | |
| 46 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of quark/gluon discrimination in 8 TeV pp data | CMS Physics Analysis Summary , CERN, 2013 CMS-PAS-JME-13-002 |
CMS-PAS-JME-13-002 |
| 47 | CMS Collaboration | Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data | CMS Physics Analysis Summary , CERN, 2017 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
| 48 | M. J. Oreglia | A study of the reactions $ \psi^\prime \to \gamma \gamma \psi $ | PhD thesis, Stanford University, SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, 1980 link |
|
| 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 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period | CMS Physics Analysis Summary , CERN, 2017 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 |
| 51 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary , CERN, 2019 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|