## Erratum: Bounds on Invisible Higgs boson Decays from ttH ¯ Production

Ning Zhou, 1 Zepyoor Khechadoorian, 1 Daniel Whiteson, 1 and Tim M.P. Tait 1 1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697

Bounds on invisible decays of the Higgs boson from ttH ¯ production were inferred from a CMS search for stop quarks decaying to tt ¯ + E miss T . Limits on the production of ttH ¯ relied on the efficiency of the CMS selection for ttH ¯ , as measured in a simulated sample. An error in the generation of the simulated sample lead to a significant overestimate of the selection efficiency. Corrected results are presented.

PACS numbers:

In a recent Letter [1], we recast a CMS search for supersummetric stop quarks ( ˜ t → bW + E miss T ) [2] to set bounds on ttH ¯ production where the Higgs boson decays invisibly.

The result relies on the measurement of the efficiency of the CMS selection for ttH ¯ events, as measured in simulated samples generated with Madgraph5 [3], showering and hadronization with Pythia [4] and detector response simulated by Delphes [5]. The event generation used a model which included a Hχχ ¯ vertex to describe the invisible decay H → χχ ¯. Inadvertantly, the contribution from diagrams containing a ggH effective vertex was overestimated. These diagrams tend to give larger transverse momentum to the Higgs boson, leading to larger measured E miss T and a significant overestimate of the selection efficiency. Figure 1 shows a comparison of the original flawed sample and a new, correct sample. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the kinematics of the corrected ttH ¯ sample to the primary sources of background, top quark pair production.

For the corrected sample, we again apply the results of the CMS ˜ search to invisible Higgs boson det cays by calculating the expected yield of ttH ¯ in each

FIG. 1: Distribution of missing transverse momentum ttH ¯ with H → invisible for the simulated sample in the original paper as well as the corrected simulated sample. Distributions are shown after requiring exactly one lepton, at least four jets and one b -tag.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0011v2-figure-c7ea0368-3cf5-4a84-a398-e21764688e40.jpg)

FIG. 2: Kinematics of ttH ¯ with H → invisible and all tt ¯ decay modes, compared to the two dominant backgrounds, SM top quark production with either single lepton ( glyph[lscript]ν bqq b ′ ) or di-lepton ( glyph[lscript]ν bglyph[lscript] ′ νb ) decay modes. Distributions are shown of M T , the transverse mass; M W T 2 , as defined in Ref. [10]; χ 2 had , the consistency of the jjb system with a top quark hadronic decay; and min(∆ φ [MET, jet]), the minimum angle between the E miss T and any jet . Distributions are shown after requiring exactly one lepton, at least four jets and one b -tag.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0011v2-figure-ab1bf4a5-830e-44f5-8802-58aef8ac6d19.jpg)

of the signal regions. We calculate upper bounds on σ ttH ( ¯ ) × BF H ( → inv.) using a one-sided profile likelihood and the CLs technique [6, 7], evaluated using the asymptotic approximation [8]. For each of the sixteen signal regions, we calculate the median expected limit on σ ttH ( ¯ ) × BF H ( → inv.). As with the original sample, the region with the strongest expected limit is that targeting ˜ t → tχ ˜ in the high-∆ M regime, with E miss T &gt; 250 GeV. This region has the additional requirements of min(∆ φ E [ miss T , j ]) &gt; 0 8, . M W T 2 &gt; 200 GeV and χ 2 had &lt; 5 0. . The expected background is reported to be 9 5 . ± 2 8. . With our simulated sample, we calculate an expected ttH ¯ yield of 2.1 events if BF( H → inv.) = 1 0 . (compare to 11.4 events for the incorrect sample). The

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0011v2-figure-3981155f-e2d4-41c1-92e7-6fdb364817b8.jpg)

H

FIG. 3: Top pane gives 95% CL upper limits on σ ttH ( ¯ ) × BF H ( → inv.), including both expected and observed limits. Also shown is the SM rate of σ ttH ( ¯ ) [9]. The bottom pane shows the ratio of the constraint to the SM σ ttH ( ¯ ) cross section.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1408.0011v2-figure-718807b7-de3d-4e04-8102-563b1ce424b7.jpg)

efficiency of this selection for ttH ¯ → ttχχ ¯ ¯ events with m H = 125 GeV is 0.085% (compare to 0.45% for the incorrect sample).

In this particular signal region, the data have fluctuated quite low, N obs = 3 events, giving an observed upper bound considerably stronger than the median expected results; see Fig. 3. Dividing by the predicted rate of ttH ¯ production in the SM [9] gives a limit on BF( H → inv); the observed (expected) result is &lt; 1 9 (3 0) at 95% CL . . for m H = 125 GeV.

This result is significantly weaker than the previous. For this reason, we do not perform a combination with other channels nor provide an interpretation in terms of the Higgs portal model.

- [1] N. Zhou, Z. Khechadoorian, D. Whiteson, and T. M. Tait, Phys.Rev.Lett. 113 , 151801 (2014), 1408.0011.
- [2] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur.Phys.J. C73 , 2677 (2013), 1308.1586.
- [3] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106 , 128 (2011), 1106.0522.
- [4] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605 , 026 (2006), hep-ph/0603175.
- [5] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3), JHEP 1402 , 057 (2014), 1307.6346.
- [6] A. L. Read, J.Phys. G28 , 2693 (2002).
- [7] T. Junk, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A434 , 435 (1999), hepex/9902006.
- [8] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur.Phys.J. C71 , 1554 (2011), 1007.1727.
- [9] S. Heinemeyer et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group) (2013), 1307.1347.
- [10] Y. Bai, H.-C. Cheng, J. Gallicchio, and J. Gu, JHEP 1207 , 110 (2012), 1203.4813.
Ning Zhou Zepyoor Khechadoorian Daniel Whiteson Tim Tait
Erratum: Bounds on Invisible Higgs boson Decays from $t\bar{t}H$ Production
Bounds on invisible decays of the Higgs boson from $t\bar{t}H$ production
were inferred from a CMS search for stop quarks decaying to $t\bar{t}$ and
missing transverse momentum. Limits on the production of $t\bar{t}H$ relied on
the efficiency of the CMS selection for $t\bar{t}H$, as measured in a simulated
sample. An error in the generation of the simulated sample lead to a
significant overestimate of the selection efficiency. Corrected results are
presented.