CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-HIG-17-007
Search for the standard model Higgs boson in the dilepton plus photon channel in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Abstract: A search for a Higgs boson decaying into a pair of electrons or muons plus a photon is described. This final state has contributions from Higgs decays to a $\mathrm{Z}$ boson and a photon ($\mathrm{H}\rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\gamma\rightarrow \ell\ell\gamma, \ell=\mathrm{e}$ or $\mu$), or to two photons, one of which has an internal conversion into a lepton pair ($\mathrm{H}\rightarrow \gamma^{*}\gamma\rightarrow\mu\mu\gamma$). The analysis is performed using a dataset recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess above the background prediction has been found in the 120-130 GeV mass range. Limits are set on the cross section for a standard model Higgs boson decaying to opposite-sign electron or muon pairs and a photon. The observed limits on cross section times the corresponding branching fractions fluctuate between 4 and 1.4 (11 and 6) times the standard model cross section for $\mathrm{H}\rightarrow \gamma^{*}\gamma\rightarrow\mu\mu\gamma$ ($\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\gamma\to\ell\ell\gamma$). The $\mathrm{H}\to\gamma^*\gamma\to\mu\mu\gamma$ and $\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\gamma\to\ell\ell\gamma$ analyses are combined for $m_\mathrm{H}= $ 125 GeV, obtaining an observed (expected) 95% upper limit of 3.9 (2.0) times the standard model cross section.
Figures & Tables Summary Additional Figures References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Dominant diagrams contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-e:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-f:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 1-g:
A dominant diagram contributing to $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \ell \ell \gamma $ process.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for all event classes for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for the EB, High R9 event class for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for the EB, Low R9 event class for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for the EE event class for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for the Dijet Tagged event class for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for untagged 1 (top left), untagged 2 (top right), untagged 3 (middle left), untagged 4 (middle right), di-jet tagged (bottom left) and boosted tag (bottom right) for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for untagged 1 for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for untagged 2 for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for untagged 3 for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for untagged 4 for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3-e:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for di-jet tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 3-f:
Background model fit to the $m_{{\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma}$ distribution for boosted tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to {\mathrm {e}} {\mathrm {e}}\gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for untagged 1 (top left), untagged 2 (top right), untagged 3 (middle left), untagged 4 (middle right), di-jet tagged (bottom left) and boosted tag (bottom right) for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for untagged 1 tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for untagged 2 tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for untagged 3 tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for untagged 4 tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4-e:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for di-jet tagged tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 4-f:
Background model fit to the $m_{\mu \mu \gamma}$ distribution for di-jet boosted tag for the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ selection. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Background model fit to the $m_{\ell \ell \gamma}$ distribution for $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \ell \ell \gamma $ lepton tag category. The green and yellow bands represent the 68% and 95% uncertainties in the fit to the data.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Exclusion limit, at 95% confidence level, on the cross section of $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ as a function of the Higgs boson mass based on 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data taken at 13 TeV.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Exclusion limit, at 95% confidence level, on the cross section of $ {\mathrm {H}} \rightarrow Z\gamma \rightarrow \ell \ell \gamma $ as a function of the Higgs boson mass based on 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data taken at 13 TeV.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Exclusion limit, at 95% confidence level, on the cross section of $ {\mathrm {H}} \rightarrow \ell \ell \gamma $ for a SM Higgs boson of $m_ {\mathrm {H}} = $ 125 GeV. The upper limits of each analysis category, as well as their combinations, are shown. Black full (empty) circles show the observed (expected) limit. Red circles show the expected upper limit assuming a SM Higgs boson decaying to $\ell \ell \gamma $ decay channel.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Categories in $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \ell \ell \gamma $.

png pdf
Table 2:
Expected signal yields for a 125 GeV SM Higgs boson for all the categories in $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ and $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \ell \ell \gamma $, in the narrowest mass window around 125 GeV containing 68.3% of the expected signal distribution.

png pdf
Table 3:
Fit function chosen as a result of the bias study used in the analysis.

png pdf
Table 4:
Sources of systematic uncertainties considered in the $ {\mathrm {H}} \to {\mathrm {Z}}\gamma \to \ell \ell \gamma $ and $ {\mathrm {H}} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ analyses. The pre-fit values of the nuisance parameters are shown averaged over all the categories in the analysis in the second column which either affect the normalization of the simulated signal event yields or the mean and resolution of $m_{\ell \ell \gamma}$.
Summary
A search has been performed for a SM Higgs boson decaying into a dilepton and a photon. The analysis uses a dataset from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess has been found and the limits on the Higgs production cross section times the corresponding branching fractions at the LHC have been derived. The expected exclusion limits at 95% confidence level are around 2.3-2.1 (9-3) times the SM cross section in the $\mathrm{H}\to\gamma^*\gamma\to\mu\mu\gamma$ ($\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\gamma\to\ell\ell\gamma$) channel in the mass range from 120 and 130 GeV, and the observed limit fluctuates between about 4 and 1.4 (11 and 6) times the SM cross section. Finally, the $\mathrm{H}\to\gamma^*\gamma\to\mu\mu\gamma$ and $\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{Z}\gamma\to\ell\ell\gamma$ analyses have been combined for $m_\mathrm{H} = $ 125 GeV, obtaining an observed (expected) 95% upper limit of 3.9 (2.0) times the standard model cross section.
Additional Figures

png pdf
Additional Figure 1:
Final selection efficiency of the signal for $\mathrm{H} \rightarrow \gamma ^{*}\gamma \rightarrow \mu \mu \gamma $ for a $m_{\mathrm{H}}$ range from 120 GeV to 130 GeV. The error band is the $1-\sigma $ systematics uncertainty on the signal efficiency. This uncertainty includes uncertainty on lepton and photon identification scale factors (SFs), HLT SFs, pile-up reweighting and underlying event/parton shower.

png pdf
Additional Figure 2:
Final selection efficiency of the signal for $\mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{Z} \gamma \rightarrow \mathrm{e} \mathrm{e} \gamma $ for a $m_{\mathrm{H}}$ range from 120 GeV to 130 GeV. The error band is the $1-\sigma $ systematics uncertainty on the signal efficiency. This uncertainty includes uncertainty on lepton and photon identification scale factors (SFs), HLT SFs, pile-up reweighting and underlying event/parton shower.

png pdf
Additional Figure 3:
Final selection efficiency of the signal for $\mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{Z} \gamma \rightarrow \mu \mu \gamma $ for a $m_{\mathrm{H}}$ range from 120 GeV to 130 GeV. The error band is the $1-\sigma $ systematics uncertainty on the signal efficiency. This uncertainty includes uncertainty on lepton and photon identification scale factors (SFs), HLT SFs, pile-up reweighting and underlying event/parton shower.

png pdf
Additional Figure 4:
Combined p-value of the analyses, $\mathrm{H} \to \gamma ^*\gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma $ and $\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{Z} \gamma \to \ell \ell \gamma $. The expected with signal injected at $m_{\mathrm{H}} = $ 125 GeV is shown in dotted red line. The black line shows the observed.
References
1 A. Abbasabadi, D. Bowser-Chao, D. A. Dicus, and W. W. Repko Radiative Higgs boson decays $ \mathrm{H}\to ff\gamma $ PRD 55 (1997) 5647 hep-ph/9611209
2 Y. Sun, H. Chang, and D. Gao Higgs decays to $ \gamma \ell^+\ell^- $ in the standard model JHEP 05 (2013) 061 1303.2230
3 L. B. Chen, C. F. Qiao, and R. L. Zhu Reconstructing the 125 GeV SM Higgs boson through $ \ell\bar{\ell}\gamma $ PLB 726 (2013) 306 1211.6058
4 G. Passarino Higgs boson production and decay: Dalitz sector PLB 727 (2013) 424 1308.0422
5 A. Korchin and V. Kovalchuk Angular distribution and forward-backward asymmetry of the higgs-boson decay to photon and lepton pair EPJC 74 (2014) 1408.0342
6 M. Bauer, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm LHC as an Axion Factory: Probing an Axion Explanation for $ (g-2)_\mu $ with Exotic Higgs Decays PRL 119 (2017) 1704.08207
7 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector 1610.07922
8 J. M. Campbell and R. Ellis MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10 1007.3492
9 D. A. Dicus and W. W. Repko Calculation of the decay $ \mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{e}\bar{\mathrm{e}}\gamma $ PRD 87 (2013) 077301 1302.2159
10 D. A. Dicus and W. W. Repko Dalitz decay $ \mathrm{H}\to f\bar{f}\gamma $ as a background for $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ PRD 89 (2014) 093013 1402.5317
11 A. Firan and R. Stroynowski Internal conversions in Higgs decays to two photons PRD 76 (2007) 057301 0704.3987
12 ATLAS Collaboration Search for Higgs boson decays to a photon and a Z boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 732 (2014) 8 1402.3051
13 CMS Collaboration Search for a Higgs boson decaying into a Z and a photon in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV PLB 726 (2013) 587 CMS-HIG-13-006
1307.5515
14 CMS Collaboration Search for a Higgs boson decaying into $ \gamma^* \gamma \to \ell \ell \gamma $ with low dilepton mass in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s = $ 8 TeV PLB 753 (2016) 341 CMS-HIG-14-003
1507.03031
15 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
16 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
17 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
18 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
19 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
20 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet User Manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
21 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
22 P. Artoisenet et al. A framework for Higgs characterisation JHEP 11 (2013) 043 1306.6464
23 P. de Aquino and K. Mawatari Characterising a Higgs-like resonance at the LHC in Proceedings, 1st Toyama International Workshop on Higgs as a Probe of New Physics 2013 (HPNP2013): Toyama, Japan, February 13-16, 2013 2013 1307.5607
24 T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 CPC 178 (2008) 852 0710.3820
25 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG JHEP 04 (2009) 002 0812.0578
26 P. Nason and C. Oleari NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG JHEP 02 (2010) 037 0911.5299
27 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
28 M. J. Oreglia A study of the reactions $\psi' \to \gamma\gamma \psi$ PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980 SLAC Report SLAC-R-236, see Appendix D
29 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CL(s) technique JPG28 (2002) 2693--2704
30 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
31 The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group Collaboration Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005
32 CMS Collaboration Collaboration CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, CERN, Geneva
33 A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt Parton distributions for the LHC EPJC 63 (2009) 189 0901.0002
34 H. Lai et al. New parton distributions for collider physics PRD 82 (2010) 74024 1007.2241
35 S. Alekhin et al. The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Report 1101.0536
36 M. Botje et al. The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations 1101.0538
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN