{"id":"107f37d0-05ed-4ed5-8b9c-db4786642759","arxiv_id":"1408.1682","paper_version":2,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"HIGH","novelty_score":7.0,"correctness_risk":"low","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"Combining six CMS search channels, the ttH production rate is measured at 2.8 +/- 1.0 times the standard model value, a 3.4 standard deviation excess over background that is driven mainly by same-sign dimuon events.","lead":"The CMS experiment combined six searches for a Higgs boson produced alongside a top-quark pair, using 7 and 8 TeV LHC data, and measured a production rate 2.8 times the standard model prediction with an uncertainty of about one. The result is the first direct experimental handle on how strongly the Higgs boson couples to the top quark, the heaviest known fundamental particle.","discovery_kind":"extension","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"Non-prompt background in the same-sign dimuon channel is extrapolated from low-jet to high-jet control regions without direct validation at the signal region's jet multiplicity; this is the softest link under the 3.4σ excess, though the paper's 35–46% uncertainty and disclosure keep the measurement.","rationale":"The reader identified the correct load-bearing concern: the non-prompt background extrapolation in the H→leptons channel, particularly the same-sign dimuon subsample. The paper discloses this background, assigns it a 35–46% rate uncertainty, and includes it in the fit. The cross-checks (looser lepton MVA, traditional selections) are relevant but do not directly test the jet-multiplicity extrapolation. The concern is load-bearing for the 3.4σ significance claim, because the dimuon excess is comparable to the non-prompt uncertainty and drives the combined result. It is less load-bearing for the measurement claim, because the abstract's headline is µ = 2.8 ± 1.0, not a discovery claim, and the paper explicitly frames the result as a 2σ upward fluctuation on the SM expectation. Even if the non-prompt background is off by 50%, the measurement would shift but the conclusion (more consistent with SM ttH than background-only) would likely survive with a larger uncertainty. The paper's handling is adequate: it discloses the awkward subsample, quotes the result with and without it, and includes the systematic in the fit. I therefore agree with the reader's ACCEPT verdict and recommend UNCHANGED.","tokens_in":59531,"tokens_out":9498,"duration_ms":64603,"concrete_test":"Measure the non-prompt misidentification rate in a same-sign dimuon control region with ≥4 jets, orthogonal to the signal (e.g., by inverting a b-tag requirement or using a different lepton selection), and compare it to the low-jet measurement used in Section 7.3. If the rate differs by more than the assigned 35–46% uncertainty, the extrapolation is biased; recompute the non-prompt yield in the µµ signal region with the corrected rate and refit the combined µ. A shift of the dimuon non-prompt yield by 50% (from 11.9 to ~18 events) would reduce the dimuon excess from 13.3 to ~7 events and lower the combined significance from 3.4σ to roughly 2.5σ, while leaving the measurement claim µ = 2.8 ± 1.0 qualitatively intact.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The load-bearing concern is the non-prompt lepton background in the H→leptons channel, specifically the same-sign dimuon subsample. Section 7.3 estimates this background by weighting events in a control region that fail the lepton MVA, using misidentification probabilities measured 'in control regions with fewer jets than the signal region' and applied as a function of lepton pT and η, separately for ≤1 and ≥2 medium-CSV jets. The signal region requires ≥4 jets. The extrapolation in total jet multiplicity is therefore not directly validated: the misidentification probability is not measured as a function of jet multiplicity, and the paper's cross-checks (looser lepton MVA, traditional selections) test the lepton selection, not the jet-multiplicity extrapolation. Table 6 shows that in the µµ final state the non-prompt background is 11.9 ± 4.2 against a total background of 27.7 ± 4.7 and 41 observed events, so the excess (13.3 events) is comparable to the non-prompt uncertainty. The same-sign dimuon gives µ = 8.5 +3.3/−2.7 and drives the combined excess; removing it lowers the combined result to µ = 1.9 ± 1.0 and the significance to 2.2σ. If the misidentification rate in the ≥4-jet region is higher than in the low-jet control region, the non-prompt background is underestimated and the dimuon excess shrinks. The paper assigns a 35–46% rate uncertainty (Table 7) and includes it in the fit, so the quoted µ = 8.5 ± 3.3 already reflects some of this; the question is whether the uncertainty is correctly sized for the jet-multiplicity extrapolation.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The paper reports a search for standard-model ttH production in pp collisions at 7 and 8 TeV with the CMS detector, using up to 5.1 fb^-1 and 19.7 fb^-1. Three Higgs decay signatures are analyzed—H→hadrons (bb, τhτh), H→photons (γγ), and H→leptons (WW, ZZ, ττ)—with channel-optimized selections and BDT discriminants combined in a binned profile likelihood fit with 190 nuisance parameters. The best-fit signal strength is mu = 2.8 +1.0/-0.9 at mH = 125.6 GeV, corresponding to a 3.4σ excess over background-only (expected 1.2σ) and a 2.0% p-value under the SM hypothesis. The excess is dominated by the same-sign dimuon channel (mu = 8.5 +3.3/-2.7); removing it gives mu = 1.9 ± 1.0 and 2.2σ. Limits on mu as a function of mH and a (κV, κf) scan are also presented.","tokens_in":59807,"tokens_out":9539,"duration_ms":184453,"significance":"If correct, this is the first direct experimental evidence for ttH production and the first direct constraint on the top-quark Yukawa coupling, a qualitatively new probe of the Higgs sector. The analysis is comprehensive: three Higgs decay signatures, multiple topologies per signature, data-driven background estimates, and a thorough systematic budget (Table 7). The paper is transparent about the dimuon excess, its impact on the combination, and the cross-checks performed. The κV/κf interpretation and the mH-dependent limits add value beyond the single number. The result is a substantial and carefully documented contribution.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The non-prompt lepton background is the dominant background in the same-sign dilepton channel, and the excess there is comparable to its uncertainty. In the µµ final state, Table 6 gives a non-prompt yield of 11.9 ± 4.2 against a total background of 27.7 ± 4.7 and 41 observed events, so the excess of about 13 events is roughly three times the non-prompt uncertainty. The misidentification probability is measured in control regions with fewer jets than the signal region and applied as a function of lepton pT and η, split only by ≤1 versus ≥2 medium-CSV jets (Section 7.3), while the signal region requires ≥4 jets. The cross-checks described in Section 7.4 (looser lepton MVA, traditional selections) test the lepton selection rather than the jet-multiplicity extrapolation. Please provide a closure test of the non-prompt estimate at the signal region's jet multiplicity, or a more granular parameterization in jet multiplicity, and quantify the residual bias and its effect on the dimuon signal strength.","section":"Section 7.3 and Table 6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The column headers under '95% CL upper limits on mu = sigma/sigma_SM' are difficult to parse as typeset, with 'Observed', 'Median expected', 'Median expected signal-injected', '68% CL range', and '95% CL range' run together. Please restructure the table so that the observed limit, the median expected limit under background-only, the median expected limit under signal injection, and the 68% and 95% bands are unambiguously labeled.","section":"Table 8","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The four-lepton channel reports a best-fit mu = -4.7 +5.0/-1.3, with a note that the signal strength is bounded below by approximately -6 to keep the expected signal-plus-background yield non-negative. Please explain in the text how this boundary is imposed and how the asymmetric interval should be interpreted, since a negative best-fit signal strength is not physically meaningful.","section":"Table 8 and Figure 13","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The abstract quotes mu = 2.8 ± 1.0, while Section 9 quotes mu = 2.8 +1.0/-0.9 (68% CL). Please harmonize the two, or state explicitly that the abstract rounds the asymmetric interval.","section":"Abstract versus Section 9","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The p-value under the SM hypothesis (mu = 1) is quoted as 2.0%, which corresponds to a mild tension of about two standard deviations. The text states that 'within uncertainties, the result is consistent with SM expectations'; please state the size of the tension more explicitly, since a 2% p-value is not a precise agreement.","section":"Section 9","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The dilepton and trilepton BDTs are described by their input variables, but the training details (number of trees, tree depth, learning rate, and the signal and background samples used) are not given. Please add these for reproducibility, as is done for the H→hadrons BDTs in Section 5.3.","section":"Section 7.4","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The CSV scale factor for c-quark jets is set to unity with twice the relative uncertainty from b-quark jets, in the absence of a c-quark control sample. Please justify this choice more explicitly, for example by showing the effect of varying the c-quark scale factor within this uncertainty on the final result.","section":"Section 5.2","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The 7 TeV H→bb result from Ref. [33] is combined with the 8 TeV analysis. Please state explicitly how the systematic uncertainties are correlated between the 7 TeV and 8 TeV inputs, particularly the b-tagging, jet energy scale, and theoretical uncertainties.","section":"Section 3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The control-sample comparison shows the b-jet and jet multiplicity distributions but not the diphoton mass distribution. Please add the mγγ distribution for the control sample to demonstrate that the background model reproduces the shape in the signal region.","section":"Figure 8","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision","confidential_remarks":"This is a strong, comprehensive analysis and the major comment is about strengthening the non-prompt validation, not about questioning the result. The dimuon excess is the main physics driver and the paper handles it transparently, including the effect of removing that channel. The requested closure test would make the evidence more robust but is unlikely to change the conclusion."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"The thing to know about this one: the headline μ = 2.8 ± 1.0 is not a discovery claim, and the paper does not pretend it is. It is a 3.4σ excess over background-only, 2σ above the SM expectation, and Section 9 says plainly that the same-sign dimuon subsample gives μ = 8.5 and that dropping it lowers the combination to 1.9 ± 1.0 and 2.2σ. That is the right disclosure, and it is why I would not fight the ACCEPT verdict. What is genuinely new is the simultaneous fit across six ttH channels (bb, τhτh, γγ, same-sign 2l, 3l, 4l) on the full 8 TeV dataset plus 7 TeV photons and the imported 7 TeV bb result. Table 7 is an unusually complete systematic budget, and the per-channel BDT machinery is standard, mature CMS work. The stress-test concern lands, but it is bounded. Section 7.3 measures non-prompt misidentification probabilities in control regions with fewer jets than the signal region, split by b-tag multiplicity (≤1 vs ≥2 medium CSV) but not by total jet multiplicity, while the signal region requires ≥4 jets. The cross-checks (looser lepton MVA, traditional selections) test the lepton selection, not that jet-multiplicity extrapolation. In the μμ final state the non-prompt background is 11.9 ± 4.2 against 41 observed and 27.7 ± 4.7 total background, so the excess is comparable to the non-prompt uncertainty. But the paper assigns a 35–46% rate uncertainty plus a shape uncertainty and includes both in the fit, so μ = 8.5 ± 3.3 already carries a chunk of this. The open question is whether 35–46% is correctly sized for the jet-multiplicity extrapolation specifically; the paper does not demonstrate that, and a referee should ask for either a direct high-jet validation or an explicit statement that the quoted band covers it. Minor items: the four-lepton best fit of −4.7 is truncated by a positivity requirement disclosed only in a table caption, and the single-top-plus-Higgs contamination in the photons channel is argued rather than computed. Neither touches the central claim. This is for anyone working on Higgs couplings, ttH, or data-driven multilepton background estimation. It deserves referees, and I would cite it.","headline":"A mature six-channel CMS ttH combination whose 3.4σ excess is honestly traced to a same-sign dimuon subsample sitting on a non-prompt background extrapolated from low-jet control regions.","tokens_in":60545,"tokens_out":1766,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":42526,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["14.80.Bn","14.65.Ha","13.85.Qk"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"A first direct handle on how strongly the Higgs boson couples to the top quark: the CMS search for a Higgs produced alongside a top-quark pair reports a combined signal strength of $2.8$ times the standard-model rate.","keywords":["associated Higgs production","top-quark Yukawa coupling","ttH","CMS","LHC","boosted decision trees","b-tagging","signal strength"],"falsifier":"Repeat the same-sign dilepton selection on the larger 13 TeV dataset and measure the non-prompt lepton misidentification rate directly in the four-or-more-jet kinematic region rather than extrapolating it from low jet multiplicity; a genuine $t~bar t H$ signal should grow with the rising cross section and appear coherently across the $b~bar b$, $gamma~gamma$, and multilepton channels, whereas a background mismodelling would not.","tokens_in":60769,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":3269,"duration_ms":61365,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The Higgs boson's coupling to the top quark is expected to be the strongest fermion coupling in the standard model, of order one, but it cannot be measured from Higgs decays because the top quark is heavier than the Higgs. The only direct route is to catch a Higgs boson made in the same event as a top-quark pair, a process roughly 130 fb in cross section at 8 TeV, and count it. This paper combines six such searches at the LHC — Higgs decaying to bottom quarks, to hadronic taus, to photon pairs, and to W, Z, or tau pairs giving two same-sign leptons, three leptons, or four leptons — into one fit for a single number, the ratio $~mu = ~sigma/~sigma_{~text{SM}}$ of the observed rate to the standard-model prediction. The fit returns $~mu = 2.8^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ at a Higgs mass of 125.6 GeV, which is a 3.4-standard-deviation excess over the background-only hypothesis against an expected 1.2 standard deviations, and is also a roughly two-standard-deviation upward fluctuation relative to the standard model. If it holds up, this is the first experimental evidence that the Higgs boson is produced together with top quarks, and therefore the first direct measurement of the top-quark Yukawa coupling.","feed_headline":"LHC sees Higgs made with top quarks at 3.4 sigma","feed_subtitle":"Combined CMS search finds a rate 2.8 times the standard-model prediction, though it also fits a two-sigma upward fluctuation.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing device is a single binned likelihood over all channels in which every source of systematic uncertainty enters as a nuisance parameter, correlated across channels where the source is common, and the parameter of interest is the one number $~mu$. Each channel contributes a discriminating distribution rather than a yield: boosted decision trees trained on kinematics, event shape, and b-tagging output for the hadronic and leptonic channels, and the diphoton invariant mass for the photon channel, where the background shape is fitted from the data itself with the choice of functional form carried as a discrete nuisance parameter. Two data-driven estimates carry particular weight: the non-prompt lepton background in the multilepton channel, obtained by weighting events that fail the lepton multivariate discriminant by measured misidentification probabilities, and the charge-misidentification background from opposite-sign dilepton events reweighted by per-lepton charge-flip probabilities. The photon channel also requires an explicit accounting of Higgs production modes other than $t~bar t H$, which would peak at the same mass and are therefore estimated and assigned an uncertainty rather than neglected.","core_discovery":"The paper's claim is that a combined search across the main Higgs decay signatures has established, at the level of 3.4 standard deviations over background, the associated production of a Higgs boson with a top-quark pair. The data are up to 19.7 fb$^{-1}$ at 8 TeV and 5.1 fb$^{-1}$ at 7 TeV, and the six sub-channels are fitted simultaneously for a common signal strength with standard-model Higgs branching fractions assumed. The result is $~mu = 2.8^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ at 68% confidence level for $m_H = 125.6$ GeV, with a background-only $p$-value of 0.04% and a $p$-value of 2.0% under the standard-model hypothesis $~mu = 1$. The observed 95% confidence upper limit is $~mu < 4.5$, against a median expected limit of 1.7 without signal and 2.7 assuming standard-model $t~bar t H$ production. The authors are explicit that the excess is not uniform: the same-sign dilepton channel gives the largest signal strength, driven by the same-sign dimuon subsample at $~mu = 8.5^{+3.3}_{-2.7}$, and removing that subsample lowers the combined fit to $~mu = 1.9^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ with a 2.2-standard-deviation significance, while the internal consistency of the six channel results with a common strength is 29%. A two-parameter fit that scales Higgs couplings to vector bosons and to fermions separately gives a best point of $(~kappa_V, ~kappa_f) = (2.2, 1.5)$, compatible with the standard-model $(1,1)$ at 95% confidence level.","pith_inferences":["The significance arithmetic is the part most sensitive to how the dominant reducible backgrounds are extrapolated: the multilepton channel's non-prompt estimate is measured in low-jet control samples and applied to events with four or more jets, so an unmodelled jet-multiplicity dependence in the misidentification rate would move the combined $~mu$ more than any single detector systematic.","Because the same-sign dimuon subsample carries the excess, an independent check with a different dimuon background decomposition — for example a looser lepton selection with the misidentification rate measured directly in the signal-like jet multiplicity — would be the cheapest way to confirm or dissolve the result.","The internal consistency of 29% across six channels is not alarming on its own, but combined with the concentration of the excess in one subsample it suggests the fit is being pulled by a single region rather than by a coherent signal across decay modes, which is what a genuine $t~bar t H$ signal would be expected to produce.","If the effect is real, the same analysis applied to the larger 13 TeV dataset should show the excess grow roughly in proportion to the $t~bar t H$ cross section, which rises steeply with collision energy — a much sharper test than repeating the 8 TeV measurement."],"forward_implications":["A confirmed $t~bar t H$ signal would give the first direct, tree-level measurement of the top-quark Yukawa coupling, rather than the indirect constraint that comes from the top-quark loop in gluon fusion and in Higgs-to-photon decays.","The measured rate can be recast as a constraint on models with heavy top-quark partners, which would decay to a top quark and a Higgs boson and would shift the $t~bar t H$ rate away from the standard-model prediction.","The same data constrain the sign and size of new physics in the Higgs coupling to fermions versus vector bosons, as the two-parameter $(~kappa_V, ~kappa_f)$ scan already demonstrates.","The analysis strategy — many weak decay channels combined into one fit with correlated nuisances, plus data-driven estimates of the dominant reducible backgrounds — sets the template for the higher-statistics $t~bar t H$ measurements that follow.","The observed upper limit of 4.5 on $~mu$ bounds any beyond-standard-model enhancement of $t~bar t H$ plus extra jets at the 8 TeV collision energy."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the statistical methodology — profile likelihood, nuisance parameter treatment, and the modified frequentist CLs limit procedure — that the combination is built on.","marker":"[9]"},{"why":"Supplies the photon identification, energy calibration, and the background 'envelope' method with a discrete nuisance parameter for the fit function, used directly in the $H~to~gamma~gamma$ channel.","marker":"[30]"},{"why":"The earlier 7 TeV $t~bar t H$ search in the $H~to~b~bar b$ final state whose result is combined with the 8 TeV analysis to form the final answer.","marker":"[33]"},{"why":"Supplies the combined secondary vertex b-tagging algorithm and its efficiency and mistag working points on which jet counting, background composition, and the CSV shape corrections rest.","marker":"[60]"},{"why":"Supplies the hadron-plus-strips reconstruction and identification of hadronically decaying tau leptons used in the $H~to~tau_h tau_h$ channel.","marker":"[63]"},{"why":"Supplies the standard-model $t~bar t H$ production cross section and Higgs branching fractions that define the normalization against which $~mu$ is measured.","marker":"[27]"},{"why":"Supplies the confidence-level construction for combining searches with small event counts, used to quote the 95% upper limits.","marker":"[90]"},{"why":"Supplies the Higgs boson mass value of 125.6 GeV at which the signal strength and limits are quoted.","marker":"[29]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["CMS t tbar H fit yields mu = 2.8 ± 1.0 at m_H = 125.6 GeV","Removing same-sign dimuons drops t tbar H significance to 2.2 sigma","Six t tbar H channels fit one strength; consistency is only 29%","Same-sign dimuon subsample gives mu = 8.5 +3.3/-2.7 in t tbar H","Observed t tbar H limit is mu < 4.5 against expected 1.7"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The result rests on the multilepton channel's data-driven estimate of background events containing a non-prompt lepton, which is measured in control samples with fewer jets and extrapolated to the four-or-more-jet signal region; if that extrapolation is wrong, the excess moves.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["CMS t tbar H fit yields mu = 2.8 ± 1.0 at m_H = 125.6 GeV","Removing same-sign dimuons drops t tbar H significance to 2.2 sigma","Six t tbar H channels fit one strength; consistency is only 29%","Same-sign dimuon subsample gives mu = 8.5 +3.3/-2.7 in t tbar H","Observed t tbar H limit is mu < 4.5 against expected 1.7"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":2087,"prompt_tokens":1091,"completion_tokens":996,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":874}},"tokens_in":1091,"tokens_out":996,"duration_ms":8876,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":874,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-10-29T05:15:19.098769+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"Repeat the same-sign dilepton selection on the larger 13 TeV dataset and measure the non-prompt lepton misidentification rate directly in the four-or-more-jet kinematic region rather than extrapolating it from low jet multiplicity; a genuine $t~bar t H$ signal should grow with the rising cross section and appear coherently across the $b~bar b$, $gamma~gamma$, and multilepton channels, whereas a background mismodelling would not.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and 8 TeV","cited_arxiv_id":"1303.4571","evidence_quote":"Supplies the statistical methodology — profile likelihood, nuisance parameter treatment, and the modified frequentist CLs limit procedure — that the combination is built on."},{"cited_title":"Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties","cited_arxiv_id":"1407.0558","evidence_quote":"Supplies the photon identification, energy calibration, and the background 'envelope' method with a discrete nuisance parameter for the fit function, used directly in the $H~to~gamma~gamma$ channel."},{"cited_title":"Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with a top-quark pair in pp collisions at the LHC","cited_arxiv_id":"1303.0763","evidence_quote":"The earlier 7 TeV $t~bar t H$ search in the $H~to~b~bar b$ final state whose result is combined with the 8 TeV analysis to form the final answer."},{"cited_title":"Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment","cited_arxiv_id":"1211.4462","evidence_quote":"Supplies the combined secondary vertex b-tagging algorithm and its efficiency and mistag working points on which jet counting, background composition, and the CSV shape corrections rest."},{"cited_title":"Performance of τ-lepton reconstruction and identification in CMS","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the hadron-plus-strips reconstruction and identification of hadronically decaying tau leptons used in the $H~to~tau_h tau_h$ channel."},{"cited_title":"Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables","cited_arxiv_id":"1101.0593","evidence_quote":"Supplies the standard-model $t~bar t H$ production cross section and Higgs branching fractions that define the normalization against which $~mu$ is measured."},{"cited_title":"Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics","cited_arxiv_id":"hep-ex/9902006","evidence_quote":"Supplies the confidence-level construction for combining searches with small event counts, used to quote the 95% upper limits."},{"cited_title":"Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state","cited_arxiv_id":"1312.5353","evidence_quote":"Supplies the Higgs boson mass value of 125.6 GeV at which the signal strength and limits are quoted."}],"review_version":1}