Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-HIG-20-003 | ||
| Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced via vector boson fusion with 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| October 2021 | ||
| Abstract: A search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson produced via vector boson fusion (VBF) has been performed with the $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV data sets collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The sensitivity to the VBF production mechanism is enhanced by using two strategies to construct two analysis categories, one based on missing transverse momentum, and a second based on the properties of jets. In addition to control regions with Z and W candidate events, a high-precision control region, based on the associated production of a photon with jets, is used to constrain the dominant irreducible background from the invisible decay of the Z boson produced in association with jets. These results are combined with previous measurements in the VBF topology, for a total integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The observed (expected) upper limit on the invisible branching fraction of the Higgs boson is found to be 0.17 (0.11) at 95% CL, assuming the standard model production cross section. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PRD 105 (2022) 092007. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. |
||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets from VBF H (left), and representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Z boson in association with two jets either through VBF production (middle) or strong production (right). Diagrams for the production of a W boson in association with two jets are similar. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets from VBF H (left), and representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Z boson in association with two jets either through VBF production (middle) or strong production (right). Diagrams for the production of a W boson in association with two jets are similar. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets from VBF H (left), and representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Z boson in association with two jets either through VBF production (middle) or strong production (right). Diagrams for the production of a W boson in association with two jets are similar. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
Leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Higgs boson in association with two jets from VBF H (left), and representative leading-order Feynman diagrams for the production of a Z boson in association with two jets either through VBF production (middle) or strong production (right). Diagrams for the production of a W boson in association with two jets are similar. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Comparison of shapes for the dijet pair ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (top), ${\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower left) and ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower right), as predicted by the simulation, separating strong and VBF production for V+jets and signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Comparison of shapes for the dijet pair ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (top), ${\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower left) and ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower right), as predicted by the simulation, separating strong and VBF production for V+jets and signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Comparison of shapes for the dijet pair ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (top), ${\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower left) and ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower right), as predicted by the simulation, separating strong and VBF production for V+jets and signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-c:
Comparison of shapes for the dijet pair ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (top), ${\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower left) and ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {jj}}}$ (lower right), as predicted by the simulation, separating strong and VBF production for V+jets and signal processes. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
$\Delta \phi ({p_{\mathrm {T, Trk}}^\mathrm {miss}}, {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}})$ distribution in the SR with the additional requirement that the leading-$ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ jet passes 3 $ < |\eta | < $ 3.25. The data is compared with the sum of HF-noise template and backgrounds from simulation. The uncertainty band includes only MC statistical uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
$\text {min} {\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\mathrm {jet}})} $ distribution in data and contributions from V+jets, diboson and top backgrounds, HF-noise and QCD multijet events for the MTR (left) and VTR (right) categories. The uncertainty band shows the uncertainty from the fit used to determine the normalisation of the QCD multijet template in the corresponding signal regions. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
$\text {min} {\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\mathrm {jet}})} $ distribution in data and contributions from V+jets, diboson and top backgrounds, HF-noise and QCD multijet events for the MTR (left) and VTR (right) categories. The uncertainty band shows the uncertainty from the fit used to determine the normalisation of the QCD multijet template in the corresponding signal regions. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
$\text {min} {\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\mathrm {jet}})} $ distribution in data and contributions from V+jets, diboson and top backgrounds, HF-noise and QCD multijet events for the MTR (left) and VTR (right) categories. The uncertainty band shows the uncertainty from the fit used to determine the normalisation of the QCD multijet template in the corresponding signal regions. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{W} (\ell \nu)\text {+jets}}$ prefit and category-by-category and year-separated CR-postfit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the MTR category 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{W} (\ell \nu)\text {+jets}}$ prefit and category-by-category and year-separated CR-postfit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the MTR category 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{W} (\ell \nu)\text {+jets}}$ prefit and category-by-category and year-separated CR-postfit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the MTR category 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\gamma \text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}}$ prefit and category-by-category and year-separated CR-postfit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the MTR category 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\gamma \text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}}$ prefit and category-by-category and year-separated CR-postfit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the MTR category 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\gamma \text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}}$ prefit and category-by-category and year-separated CR-postfit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the MTR category 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), single-electron (lower right) CR for the MTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), single-electron (lower right) CR for the MTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), single-electron (lower right) CR for the MTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-c:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), single-electron (lower right) CR for the MTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-d:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), single-electron (lower right) CR for the MTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the photon CR for the MTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{W} (\ell \nu)\text {+jets}}$ prefit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the VTR category and 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{W} (\ell \nu)\text {+jets}}$ prefit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the VTR category and 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the ${\mathrm{Z} (\ell \ell)\text {+jets}} / {\mathrm{W} (\ell \nu)\text {+jets}}$ prefit ratios as functions of ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$, for the VTR category and 2017 (left) and 2018 (right) samples. The minor backgrounds in each CR are subtracted from the data using MC estimates. The grey bands include the theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties listed in Table 3, as well as the statistical uncertainty in the simulation. |
png pdf |
Figure 10:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), and single-electron (lower right) CRs for the VTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-a:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), and single-electron (lower right) CRs for the VTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-b:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), and single-electron (lower right) CRs for the VTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-c:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), and single-electron (lower right) CRs for the VTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-d:
The ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distributions (CR-postfit and postfit) in the dimuon (upper left), dielectron (upper right), single-muon (lower left), and single-electron (lower right) CRs for the VTR category, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 11:
The observed ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distribution in the MTR (top) and VTR (bottom) SRs compared to the postfit backgrounds, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The signal processes are scaled by the fitted value of $ {{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}} $, shown in the legend. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-a:
The observed ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distribution in the MTR (top) and VTR (bottom) SRs compared to the postfit backgrounds, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The signal processes are scaled by the fitted value of $ {{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}} $, shown in the legend. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-b:
The observed ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ distribution in the MTR (top) and VTR (bottom) SRs compared to the postfit backgrounds, with the 2017 and 2018 samples. The signal processes are scaled by the fitted value of $ {{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}} $, shown in the legend. The last bin of each distribution integrates events above the bin threshold divided by the bin width. |
png pdf |
Figure 12:
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on ${{(\sigma _{\mathrm{H}}/\sigma _{\mathrm{H}}^{\mathrm {SM}}) \times {{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}}}}$ for all three years of data taking, as well as their combination, assuming a SM Higgs boson with a mass of 125.38 GeV. |
png pdf |
Figure 13:
Profile likelihood ratios as a function of ${{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}}$. The observed likelihood scans are reported for the full combination of 2016, 2017 and 2018 data, as well as for the individual years. The expected results for the combination are obtained using an Asimov data set with $ {{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}} =$ 0. |
png pdf |
Figure 14:
90% CL upper limits on the spin-independent DM-nucleon scattering cross section in Higgs-portal models, assuming a scalar (solid orange) or fermion (dashed red) DM candidate. Limits are computed as a function of $m_{DM}$ and are compared to those from the Xenon1T [68], Cresst-II [69], CDMSlite [70], LUX [71], Panda-X II [72] and DarkSide-50 [73] experiments. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Selection applied in the 2017 and 2018 data sets to remove HF jets stemming from calorimeter noise. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Summary of the kinematic selections used to define the SR for both the MTR and the VTR categories. |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Experimental and theoretical sources of systematic uncertainties on the V+jets transfer factors. The second column highlights on which ratio specifically a given source of uncertainty acts, and its impact on ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ is given in the 3rd column, either as a single value (if no dependence on ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ is observed) or as a range of impact on low to high ${M_{\mathrm {jj}}}$ values. |
png pdf |
Table 6:
The 95% CL upper limits, both observed and expected, and their expected confidence intervals per category and for the combinations. |
png pdf |
Table 7:
Uncertainty breakdown on ${{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}}$. The sources of uncertainty are separated into different groups. Observed and expected results are quoted for the full combination of 2016, 2017 and 2018 data. The expected results are obtained using an Asimov data set with $ {{\mathcal {B}(\mathrm{H} \to \text {inv})}} =$ 0. |
| Summary |
| A search for a Higgs boson decaying invisibly, produced in the vector-boson fusion mode, is performed with 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions delivered by the LHC at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV and collected by the CMS detector in 2017 and 2018. Building upon the previously published results, an additional category targeting events at lower Higgs boson transverse momentum has been added. An additional high-precision control region, based on the associated production of a photon with jets, is used to constrain the dominant irreducible background from invisible decay of the Z boson produced in association with jets. Compared to the strategy of the previously published analysis, these additions together improve the expected limits by approximately 17%. The observed (expected) upper limit on the invisible branching fraction of the Higgs boson is found to be 0.18 (0.12), assuming the standard model production cross section. The results are combined with previous measurements in the VBF topology, for a total integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV, yielding an observed (expected) upper limit of 0.17 (0.11). Finally, the results are interpreted in the context of Higgs-portal models. The 90% CL upper limits on the spin-independent dark-matter-nucleon scattering cross section extracted from the observed LHC Run 2 results complement the direct-detection experiments in the range $m_{DM}$ smaller than 12 (6) GeV, assuming a fermion (scalar) dark matter candidate. |
| 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 | Particle Data Group Collaboration | Review of Particle Physics | PTEP 2020 (2020), no. 8, 083C01 | |
| 5 | G. Bélanger et al. | The MSSM invisible Higgs in the light of dark matter and g-2 | PLB 519 (2001) 93 | hep-ph/0106275 |
| 6 | A. Datta, K. Huitu, J. Laamanen, and B. Mukhopadhyaya | Linear collider signals of an invisible Higgs boson in theories of large extra dimensions | PRD 70 (2004) 075003 | hep-ph/0404056 |
| 7 | D. Dominici and J. F. Gunion | Invisible Higgs decays from Higgs-graviscalar mixing | PRD 80 (2009) 115006 | 0902.1512 |
| 8 | R. E. Shrock and M. Suzuki | Invisible decays of Higgs bosons | PLB 110 (1982) 250 | |
| 9 | A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini, and J. Quevillon | Implications of LHC searches for Higgs--portal dark matter | PLB 709 (2012) 65 | 1112.3299 |
| 10 | S. Baek, P. Ko, W.-I. Park, and E. Senaha | Higgs portal vector dark matter: revisited | JHEP 05 (2013) 036 | 1212.2131 |
| 11 | A. Djouadi, A. Falkowski, Y. Mambrini, and J. Quevillon | Direct detection of Higgs--portal dark matter at the LHC | EPJC 73 (2013) 2455 | 1205.3169 |
| 12 | A. Beniwal et al. | Combined analysis of effective Higgs--portal dark matter models | PRD 93 (2016) 115016 | 1512.06458 |
| 13 | The 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 |
| 14 | ATLAS Collaboration | Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment | PRL 122 (2019), no. 23, 231801 | 1904.05105 |
| 15 | CMS Collaboration | Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | PLB 793 (2019) 520 | CMS-HIG-17-023 1809.05937 |
| 16 | ATLAS Collaboration | Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment | ATLAS-CONF-2020-052, CERN, Geneva, Oct, 2020 | |
| 17 | CMS Collaboration | A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel | PLB 805 (2020) 135425 | CMS-HIG-19-004 2002.06398 |
| 18 | CMS Collaboration | Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=13 \text {Te}\text{V} $ | EPJC 79 (2019), no. 5, 421 | CMS-HIG-17-031 1809.10733 |
| 19 | CMS Collaboration | Searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson in $ {{\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 , 8, and 13 TeV | JHEP 02 (2017) 135 | CMS-HIG-16-016 1610.09218 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | CMS-00-001 |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 22 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JINST 15 (2020), no. 10, P10017 | CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165 |
| 23 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 24 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 25 | 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 |
| 26 | 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 |
| 27 | P. Nason and C. Oleari | NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG | JHEP 02 (2010) 037 | 0911.5299 |
| 28 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group | Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector | 1610.07922 | |
| 29 | 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 |
| 30 | 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 |
| 31 | R. Frederix and S. Frixione | Merging meets matching in MC@NLO | JHEP 12 (2012) 061 | 1209.6215 |
| 32 | 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 |
| 33 | J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason, and E. Re | Top-pair production and decay at NLO matched with parton showers | JHEP 04 (2015) 114 | 1412.1828 |
| 34 | S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re | NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ \textits- $ and $ \textitt-channel $ contributions | JHEP 09 (2009) 111 | 0907.4076 |
| 35 | E. Re | Single-top $ {\mathrm{W}} $t-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method | EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 | 1009.2450 |
| 36 | T. Sjostrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | CPC 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 37 | T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi | $ {\mathrm{W}^{+}\mathrm{W}^{-}} $, $ {\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}} $ and $ {\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}} $ production in the POWHEG BOX | JHEP 11 (2011) 078 | 1107.5051 |
| 38 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions for the LHC Run II | JHEP 04 (2015) 040 | 1410.8849 |
| 39 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | EPJC 80 (2020), no. 1, 4 | CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 40 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4 --- a simulation toolkit | NIMA 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 41 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 42 | M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam | Pileup subtraction using jet areas | PLB 659 (2008) 119 | 0707.1378 |
| 43 | 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 |
| 44 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ {\sqrt{s} = 8 TeV} $ | JINST 10 (2015) P08010 | CMS-EGM-14-001 1502.02702 |
| 45 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $ {\sqrt{s} = 7 TeV} $ | JINST 7 (2012) P10002 | CMS-MUO-10-004 1206.4071 |
| 46 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti--$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 47 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 48 | 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 |
| 49 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | JINST 15 (2020), no. 09, P09018 | CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503 |
| 50 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in pp data at $ {\sqrt{s} = 8 TeV} $ | JINST 10 (2015) P02006 | CMS-JME-13-003 1411.0511 |
| 51 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV pp collision data using the CMS detector | CMS-PAS-JME-16-004 | CMS-PAS-JME-16-004 |
| 52 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the DeepTau algorithm for the discrimination of taus against jets, electron, and muons | CDS | |
| 53 | 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 |
| 54 | J. M. Lindert et al. | Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds | EPJC 77 (2017) 829 | 1705.04664 |
| 55 | K. Arnold et al. | VBFNLO: a parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons | CPC 180 (2009) 1661 | 0811.4559 |
| 56 | J. Baglio et al. | Release note --- VBFNLO 2.7.0 | 1404.3940 | |
| 57 | CMS Collaboration | CMS Technical Design Report for the Level-1 Trigger Upgrade | Technical Design Report, CERN-LHCC-2013-011, CMS-TDR-12 | |
| 58 | CMS Collaboration | Reconstruction and identification of $ \tau $ lepton decays to hadrons and $ \nu_\tau $ at CMS | JINST 11 (2016) P01019 | CMS-TAU-14-001 1510.07488 |
| 59 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | ||
| 60 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | ||
| 61 | CMS Collaboration | Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS | EPJC 81 (2021), no. 9, 800 | CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927 |
| 62 | T. Junk | Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics | NIMA 434 (1999) 435 | hep-ex/9902006 |
| 63 | A. L. Read | Presentation of search results: the $ {\textrm{\CL}_{\textrm{s}}} $ technique | JPG 28 (2002) 2693 | |
| 64 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
| 65 | The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and the LHC Higgs Combination Group | Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 | CMS-NOTE-2011-005 | |
| 66 | M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, J. Men\'endez, and A. Schwenk | Improved limits for Higgs-portal dark matter from LHC searches | PRL 119 (2017) 181803 | 1708.02245 |
| 67 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group | Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties | 1307.1347 | |
| 68 | XENON Collaboration | Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of XENON1T | PRL 121 (2018) 111302 | 1805.12562 |
| 69 | CRESST Collaboration | Results on light dark matter particles with a low-threshold CRESST-II detector | EPJC 76 (2016) 25 | 1509.01515 |
| 70 | SuperCDMS Collaboration | New results from the search for low-mass weakly interacting massive particles with the CDMS low ionization threshold experiment | PRL 116 (2016) 071301 | 1509.02448 |
| 71 | LUX Collaboration | Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure | PRL 118 (2017) 021303 | 1608.07648 |
| 72 | PandaX-II Collaboration | Results of dark matter search using the full PandaX-II exposure | CPC 44 (2020) 125001 | 2007.15469 |
| 73 | DarkSide Collaboration | Low-mass dark matter search with the DarkSide-50 Experiment | PRL 121 (2018) 081307 | 1802.06994 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|