Scale-invariant resonance tagging in multijet events and new physics in Higgs pair production

Alexandra Oliveira; Gavin P. Salam; Juan Rojo; Maxime Gouzevitch; Rogerio Rosenfeld; Veronica Sanz

REVIEW

Scale-invariant resonance tagging in multijet events and new physics in Higgs pair production

Maxime Gouzevitch, Alexandra Oliveira, Juan Rojo, Rogerio Rosenfeld, Gavin P. Salam, Veronica Sanz

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 26 Mar 2013 · 99 references

Pith's verdict: A genuinely useful tagging scheme with a clean analytic core; the 'uniform background rejection' claim is the one place it oversells, and the authors half-admit it in a footnote.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1303.6636 (version 2)

Pith IDIGQ63AL2, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAlexandra Oliveira, Gavin P. Salam, Juan Rojo, Maxime Gouzevitch, Rogerio Rosenfeld, Veronica Sanz. "Scale-invariant resonance tagging in multijet events and new physics in Higgs pair production." arXiv:1303.6636 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/IGQ63AL2

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The part worth your time is Eqs. (14)-(16). They derive the asymptotic 2-tag efficiency from the BDRS asymmetry cut, then pick Δy^res_max = 1.5 so that the resolved 0-tag efficiency at rM ≈ 1 matches it. That is a cut chosen to make two regimes agree rather than tuned on a benchmark point, and it is why the efficiency curves in Figs. 4, 5 and 11 come out flat. The 0/1/2-tag chain built on top is sensible engineering, and the toy-MC-versus-MadGraph cross-check in Fig. 11 (radion tracks the toy closely, graviton close behind) is a real validation rather than decoration. The parton-level scale-invariance argument — everything depends on rM alone — is correct and cleanly stated. So the method half of the paper holds up well. Where it is soft is the abstract's 'uniform ... background rejection rates' (abstract:s1). Section 4.3 says the b-tagged mistag is 'about 10^-4, constant to very good approximation,' but footnote 15 concedes that a resolved candidate made of two anti-kT jets has mistag closer to 2f_l than f_l. Since the 0-tag sample dominates at low rM and the 2-tag sample at high rM, the per-event rejection is topology-dependent at roughly the factor-of-4 level, and Fig. 14 right does not visibly show the low-mass rise you would expect. Through Ns ∝ √Nb in Eq. (44) that is a factor ~1.4-2 on the 500 GeV reach in Figs. 15 and 18. The authors flag the issue and then do not propagate it. A referee should ask for the mistag decomposition split by tag category with b-tagging on; that would settle whether the figure or the footnote is right. On the reader's Pythia8 factor-of-two worry: it is less damaging than it looks, because the mistag is a ratio taken from the same sample, so a global underestimate largely cancels in the shape. It does not cancel if Pythia8 specifically undershoots the four-jet-like topologies that fake the signal, which is plausible. Real but bounded, and not the main concern. Also minor and already stated in the text: LO only with an acknowledged K~2 signal factor, parton-level b-tagging, no code shipped. Who should read it: anyone doing di-Higgs or multijet resonance searches, and the substructure crowd generally, since the method is reusable independent of the 4b application. Send it out. The method is sound and the analytic core is checkable; the reach numbers need the mistag caveat nailed down, not a rewrite.

Referee report

Significance

The paper addresses a real gap in LHC multijet searches: the artificial split between boosted and resolved analyses of the same underlying process. The tag-count classification is a sensible and reusable idea, and the manuscript does several things that make the claim checkable rather than rhetorical. The analytic efficiency estimates in Eq. (14) and Eq. (16) can be verified by hand from the stated parameters (ycut = 0.09, Δymax = 1.3, Δyresmax = 1.5 give 0.40 and 1.49 respectively), which is a genuine strength: the flatness of the signal efficiency is not merely observed in a simulation but has a closed-form justification. The cross-validation in Fig. 11 between the toy Monte Carlo and the MadGraph radion and graviton samples, and the explicit parameter table (Table 1), make the procedure reproducible. The quoted reach numbers are falsifiable and are stated in a form that experimental colleagues can compare against. If the background-rejection half of the scale-invariance claim holds up as stated, the paper is a useful methodological contribution with a concrete physics application.

Major objections (4)

[§4.2, footnote 15, §4.3, abstract:s1] The abstract claims 'uniform signal efficiencies and background rejection rates', and §4.3 states that with b-tagging the mistag probability is 'about 10^-4, constant to very good approximation in all the relevant mass range'. Footnote 15 concedes that a resolved Higgs candidate built from two anti-kT jets has mistag probability closer to 2fl rather than fl. Since the 0-tag sample dominates at low rM and the 2-tag sample at high rM, this introduces an explicitly topology-dependent factor of roughly four per event between the two ends of the rM range in the very quantity that is claimed to be flat. Fig. 14 (right) does not visibly show the expected low-mass rise, so either the effect is absorbed by another requirement or the figure and footnote 15 are in tension. The authors should state which, and should either show the mistag decomposition with the per-candidate b-tag multiplicity made explicit or qualify the 'uniform background rejection' language in the abstract and in §4.3.
[§4.3, §4.4, Eq. (44), Eq. (45), Figs. 15 and 18, footnote 18] The exclusion limits are computed from a leading-order Pythia8 multijet sample that the authors themselves state may underestimate QCD multijet topologies by up to a factor of two relative to data (§4.3), and footnote 18 confirms that only statistical errors enter the limits. Because Eq. (44) gives Ns ∝ √Nb at the exclusion limit, a factor-of-two background deficit translates into an excluded cross section that is too strong by about 40%, which is comparable to the entire separation between adjacent benchmark scenarios in Fig. 18. The signal side is treated conservatively (footnote 13 declines the NLO K-factor of order two), but the background side is not, and the two omissions do not cancel in the quoted reach. The authors should attach an explicit systematic band to Figs. 15 and 18 reflecting the stated background uncertainty, and should state in the text how the quoted '200 fb at 500 GeV' and '1 fb at 2 TeV' shift under a factor-of-two variation of Nb.
[§2, §4.1, §4.5, Figs. 15 and 18 (right panels)] The entire analysis is performed without detector simulation and without pile-up, yet the 14 TeV projections at L = 500 fb^-1 in Figs. 15 and 18 correspond to luminosities where dozens of simultaneous interactions per bunch crossing are expected. The BDRS mass-drop tagger with Rsj = 1.3 and the filtering step are precisely the tools whose performance is most sensitive to pile-up, and the manuscript invokes filtering only qualitatively ('makes the procedure more resilient to soft radiation from the underlying event and pile-up', §2) without demonstrating it. Similarly, b-tagging is applied at parton level before hadronization (§4.2), which is optimistic in the boosted regime where the two B-hadrons of a single Higgs candidate merge into one anti-kT jet. The 14 TeV reach claims should either be accompanied by a pile-up study or by an explicit statement that they assume a pile-up-free environment, with a qualitative estimate of the degradation.
[§2 (quality requirement 2, Eq. (9)), §4.4] Quality requirement 2 imposes a mass window MY(1 − fm) ≤ mY ≤ MY(1 + fm) with MY fixed to 125 GeV, and the text notes that this requirement 'has a small impact in signal events, and is only relevant to suppress the QCD background'. That is exactly the point: a substantial part of the QCD rejection underlying the model-independent limits of §4.4 comes from prior knowledge of MY, not from the scale-invariant tagging itself. Since the paper's framing is that the strategy applies to the generic process X → 2Y → 4z with no a priori knowledge of the masses, the authors should quantify how the mistag probability and the reach in Fig. 15 change if the mass window is widened or removed, so that readers can separate the performance of the tagging algorithm from the performance of the Higgs-mass constraint.

Minor objections (8)

[§4.4 vs. Fig. 16 caption] The text of §4.4 states an integrated luminosity of L = 25 fb^-1 at 8 TeV, while the caption of Fig. 16 states L = 30 fb^-1 at 8 TeV. The two should be reconciled, since a 20% luminosity difference propagates directly into the quoted reach.
[Fig. 19 caption] The caption states that for 14 TeV the results are provided for both b-tagging scenarios, but the figure as shown appears to contain a single 14 TeV curve per panel. Either the second curve should be added or the caption corrected.
[§4.1, Eq. (40), Fig. 11] The pT ≥ 50 GeV, |η| ≤ 2.5, HT ≥ 300 GeV cuts visibly degrade the tagging efficiency at low rM relative to Figs. 4 and 5, as the authors acknowledge. Given that the abstract advertises uniform efficiencies 'across a broad range of masses', it would be helpful to state in the abstract or conclusions the mass range over which flatness actually survives these cuts, rather than leaving the reader to infer it from the comparison of Fig. 11 with Fig. 5.
[§3.2, Eq. (38)] The branching fraction BR(φ → HH) = 25% is assumed independent of the radion mass, with the top-quark channel neglected. For the low radion masses near threshold that dominate the 8 TeV reach, the top threshold and the m_t/m_φ scaling of Eq. (39) are not negligible. A sentence quantifying the resulting change in the low-mass reach would strengthen the benchmark interpretation.
[§2, 0-tag pairing] The 0-tag sample selects, among the five hardest jets, the pairing that minimizes |Mij − Mkl|. This criterion is applied to the same quantity that later enters the mass-degeneracy requirement of Eq. (8), so the reconstructed mass distribution in the 0-tag sample is selected to be narrow by construction. The authors should state whether this induces a visible bias in the reconstructed MX distribution, and whether an alternative pairing criterion gives compatible efficiencies.
[§4.4, Eqs. (42) and (43)] Eq. (42) uses the Gaussian approximation to the Poisson p-value and Eq. (43) the exact discrete form, with footnote 17 noting the validity condition. It would help to state explicitly at which mass points and luminosities the switch is made, since the low-rate, high-mass bins in Fig. 15 are precisely where the two can differ.
[§2, footnote 4] The choice Rsj = 1.3 is justified partly by compatibility with FastJet v2's R < π/2 restriction. Since the analysis is implemented in FastJet3 (ref. [51]), a brief statement of whether a larger Rsj was tested and found not to improve the efficiency would be more informative than the backward-compatibility rationale.
[§2, Fig. 2 caption] The caption notes that for rM ≲ 1.5 only the left-hand (parton-level) figure gives a faithful representation of the structures present. Given that the rM ≈ 1 region is where the resolved regime lives and where the analysis is most delicate, a hadron-level curve extended below rM = 1.5, even with large uncertainties, would be more useful than the caveat.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper proposes a single jet-tagging scheme that classifies events by how many mass-drop tags they contain, so that boosted and resolved resonance decays are handled by one analysis with roughly constant efficiency.

The reading

The paper asks whether a single search strategy can cover both the highly boosted and the fully resolved ways a heavy resonance can decay into four hadronic jets. Its answer is to count how many of the two hardest jets pass a BDRS mass-drop tagger, then route events into 2-tag, 1-tag, or 0-tag categories and apply the same mass and rapidity quality requirements in all three. The authors argue that because the underlying parton-level problem depends only on the mass ratio $r_M=M_X/(2M_Y)$, this tag-count classification gives signal efficiencies and QCD mistag rates that stay roughly constant as the boost changes. They then apply the scheme to resonant Higgs pair production in the $4b$ final state, using radion and Kaluza-Klein graviton models as benchmarks, and derive model-independent 95% CL limits on $[σ(pp→X) BR(X→HH)]$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mass ratio $r_M=M_X/(2M_Y)$ and the tag-count taxonomy built around it. Each of the two hardest anti-$k_t$ jets is reclustered with the Cambridge/Aachen algorithm at radius 1.3 and passed through the BDRS mass-drop tagger ($μ=0.67$, $y_{cut}=0.09$); events with two tags are treated as two boosted $Y$ candidates, events with one tag as a mixed 1-tag topology, and events with no tags as a resolved four-jet topology. Common quality cuts on the two candidate masses, their rapidity separation, the separation of resolved subjets, and the subjet $p_T$ asymmetry enforce the same logic in all three categories. Filtering with three subjets improves the mass resolution. This machinery is what turns an unknown boost into a discrete tag count and makes the efficiency curve flat.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a resonance-pair tagger built from the number of BDRS mass-drop tags smoothly interpolates between the boosted and resolved regimes, so that no separate analyses are needed. In the toy study, the combined efficiency stays between about 30% and 40% at parton level and 20% to 30% at hadron level across $r_M$ from 1 to 20; the QCD mistag probability is approximately scale invariant and, after requiring one $b$ tag per Higgs candidate, falls to about $10^{-4}$. Applied to $HH→4b$, the tagger plus $b$ tagging gives a roughly 15% signal efficiency in the relevant mass range, and the resulting 95% CL exclusion reach is about 200 fb at 500 GeV and about 1 fb at 2 TeV for 8 TeV with 25 fb$^{-1}$, with the 14 TeV and 500 fb$^{-1}$ projection reaching about 50 fb at 500 GeV. The paper presents this as evidence that the $4b$ channel can complement other Higgs-pair searches despite the QCD background.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Pythia8 multijet background used to estimate mistags is representative enough that the quoted exclusion reach survives the factor-of-two uncertainty the authors note in multijet topology rates, together with the leading-order and $b$-tagging modeling choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single analysis can cover resonance masses from the fully resolved threshold up to the highly boosted regime, replacing separate boosted and resolved searches.
The $HH→4b$ channel can set 95% CL limits on $σ(pp→X) BR(X→HH)$ of order 200 fb at 500 GeV and 1 fb at 2 TeV at the 8 TeV LHC with 25 fb$^{-1}$.
At 14 TeV with 500 fb$^{-1}$, the same channel reaches about 50 fb at 500 GeV and can probe bulk radion and bulk graviton scenarios over broad mass ranges.
The tag-count method is general for $pp→X→2Y→4z$ and can be adapted to other pair-produced resonances, including top-quark pairs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the tag fractions themselves vary smoothly with $r_M$, they could be used as a data-driven calibration of initial-state radiation and underlying-event modeling, rather than only as a signal selector.
The same tag-count logic could supply a background estimate directly from data: measure the 2-tag, 1-tag, and 0-tag yields in sidebands and extrapolate into the signal mass window, reducing dependence on the Pythia8 multijet rate.
If the efficiency really is scale invariant, an experimental analysis could quote a single efficiency curve for all resonance masses and treat the tag-count migration as a systematic uncertainty, which would simplify combinations across channels.

Original abstract

We study resonant pair production of heavy particles in fully hadronic final states by means of jet substructure techniques. We propose a new resonance tagging strategy that smoothly interpolates between the highly boosted and fully resolved regimes, leading to uniform signal efficiencies and background rejection rates across a broad range of masses. Our method makes it possible to efficiently replace independent experimental searches, based on different final state topologies, with a single common analysis. As a case study, we apply our technique to pair production of Higgs bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ pairs in generic New Physics scenarios. We adopt as benchmark models radion and massive KK graviton production in warped extra dimensions. We find that despite the overwhelming QCD background, the $4b$ final state has enough sensitivity to provide a complementary handle in searches for enhanced Higgs pair production at the LHC.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,920 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.25 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.11 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.28 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We study resonant pair production of heavy particles in fully hadronic final states by means of jet substructure techniques. We propose a new resonance tagging strategy that smoothly interpolates between the highly boosted and fully resolved regimes, leading to uniform signal efficiencies and background rejection rates across a broad range of masses. Our method makes it possible to efficiently replace independent experimental searches, based on different final state topologies, with a single common analysis. As a case study, we apply our technique to pair production of Higgs bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ pairs in generic New Physics scenarios. We adopt as benchmark models radion and massive KK graviton production in warped extra dimensions. We find that despite the overwhelming QCD background, the $4b$ final state has enough sensitivity to provide a complementary handle in searches for enhanced Higgs pair production at the LHC.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We study resonant pair production of heavy particles in fully hadronic final states by means of jet substructure techniques.	contribution 0.79	0.87	0.03	asserted 0.93
s1	We propose a new resonance tagging strategy that smoothly interpolates between the highly boosted and fully resolved regimes, leading to uniform signal efficiencies and background rejection rates across a broad range of masses.	contribution 0.76	0.90	0.23	asserted 0.96
s2	Our method makes it possible to efficiently replace independent experimental searches, based on different final state topologies, with a single common analysis.	contribution 0.53	0.53	0.14	asserted 0.76
s3	As a case study, we apply our technique to pair production of Higgs bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ pairs in generic New Physics scenarios.	contribution 0.60	0.87	0.05	asserted 0.81
s4	We adopt as benchmark models radion and massive KK graviton production in warped extra dimensions.	method 0.98	0.68	0.03	asserted 0.95
s5	We find that despite the overwhelming QCD background, the $4b$ final state has enough sensitivity to provide a complementary handle in searches for enhanced Higgs pair production at the LHC.	result 0.91	0.95	0.80	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.96.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Schematic diagrams for the generic process pp → X → 2Y → 4z in the boosted (left plot) regime, corresponding to large values of the mass ratio rM = MX/2MY , and in the resolved (right plot) regime, corresponding to small values of rM. If we assume that the heavy resonance X is produced at rest, so that the laboratory and center-of-mass reference frames coincide, we can parametrize the four momenta of the X → Y Y decay with the convention that P = (pT,x, pT,y, pL, E). We then have PX = (0, 0, 0, MX), (3) PY1 = MX 2 (βY · sin θ ∗ Y cos φ ∗ Y , βY · sin θ ∗ Y sin φ ∗ Y , βY

**Figure 2.** Left plot: the fraction of events with a given number of reconstructed jets, as a function of the resonance mass ratio rM (Eq. (2), for parton-level toy Monte Carlo events. No cuts have been applied to the final state particles. Right plot: the same at hadron-level, with the basic cuts Eq. (6) applied. Note that at parton level the only possible topologies are two-, three- and four-jet events, so their sum is equal to the total number of events. A higher density of mass points has been used in the left-hand figure than in the right-hand figure, and for rM . 1.5 only the left-hand…

**Figure 3.** Flow chart summarizing the basic structure of the resonance-pair tagger algorithm. The quality conditions are specified in the text. candidates.5 If these two candidates pass the mass and angular quality requirements given below, the event is classified as belonging to the 0-tag sample.6 Quality requirements. To identify the event as arising from the decay of the X resonance, Eq. (2), additional mass and angular quality conditions are required, which are essential to further suppress the QCD background. Some of these requirements are designed so as to apply similar conditions to…

**Figure 4.** Left plot: The efficiency of the resonance pair tagging algorithm as a function of resonances mass ratio rM Eq. (2) for parton-level toy Monte Carlo events. We show both the total efficiency and the break-up for the 2-tag, 1-tag and 0-tag samples. No cuts have been applied to the final state particles. Right plot: same for hadron-level events, which include the basic jet selection cuts. and the low rM 0-tag sample are the ones most affected by the transition from partons to hadrons. Let us mention that the production threshold region close to rM ∼ 1 is challenging from the jet…

**Figure 5.** The efficiency of the resonance pair tagging algorithm as a function of the resonance mass ratio rM, Eq. (2), for toy Monte Carlo events, comparing parton-level and hadron-level results for LHC 8 TeV. We show the total efficiency (upper left plot) and then the break-up for the 2-tag, 1-tag and 0-tag samples. The parton level results including the basic selection cuts Eq. (6) are very close to the inclusive parton level case and thus not shown here. so demanding that the efficiencies at low rM match the asymptotic large rM value, Eq. (14), we obtain ∆y res max = ln   1 + q lim…

**Figure 6.** The total tagging efficiency for parton-level events (left plot) and for hadron-level events (right plot) for different values of the jet radii R as a function of the mass ratio rM. The default radius used in this paper is R = 0.5. the two tag sample is very similar at parton and hadron-level, for all the values for rM. The efficiencies for 0 and 1-tags sample have a similar shape but a smaller magnitude, and the shape is somewhat shifted down to lower rM values. This small shift between the parton-level and hadron-level efficiencies is perhaps attributable to transverse boosts…

**Figure 7.** Relative localization of the graviton (blue-dashed) and radion (red-solid) in the extradimension. The profiles shown are the y-dimension component of the wave functions Eqs. 20 and 21. where φ(x) is the 4D wave function and e 2ky the localization profile in the fifth dimension. The fluctuations of 4D space-time are described by the graviton field Gµν(x, y). The massless zero mode of this field corresponds to the usual graviton. The first massive excitation, the lightest KK-graviton which will focus on, is G (1) µν (x, y) ∝ e 2ky J2 e 2ky mG k G (1) µν (x), (21) where J2 is a…

**Figure 8.** Feynman diagrams for Higgs pair production in warped extra dimensions models mediated by a radion φ (left plot) and a KK-graviton Gµν (right plot). The Higgs bosons then decay into a pair of b quarks. implications of recent measurements for limits on extra dimension models can be found in [23, 67–69]. Note than when experimental limits arise from decays to photons, leptons and four-fermion operators involving light fermions, they can be interpreted only in the context of RS1 but not in the bulk RS scenario. Bounds on the radion mass as a function of the cutoff scale Λφ have been…

**Figure 9.** (Left plot) Production cross sections as a function of the graviton and radion masses (mG,R), where the trivial dependence on the scale Λ = ΛG,R and the coupling to gluons (c = cg, 1) is factored out. Solid (dashed ) lines correspond to 8 (14) TeV. (Right plot) Graviton cross sections (at 8 TeV ), for specific choices of cg=1, 1/kL corresponding to RS1 and bulk RS. flexibility in that the coupling to the gluons is fixed independently of the localization of the SM fields. In the following we will assume that gluon fusion is the dominant process for both radion and KK-graviton…

**Figure 10.** Branching ratios of the graviton to the Higgs (black), tops (blue) and vector bosons (red-dashed), as a function of the top localization parameter νt. 20

**Figure 11.** Comparison between the hadron-level tagging efficiencies, at the 8 TeV LHC, for the toy Monte Carlo events and the radion and graviton MadGraph5 events. We show the total efficiencies and the breakup in different tagged samples, as a function of the boost factor rM. 4.2 B tagging The final state that we are interested in includes four b-quarks from the decays of the two Higgs bosons. Therefore, b-tagging will be an important ingredient to improve the signal over background ratio. We have adopted in this study a b-tagging scenario that we expect to be realistic (possibly…

**Figure 12.** The b-tagging efficiencies for graviton mediated Higgs pair production at the LHC 8 TeV. We show the efficiency of the resonance tagging (same as in the upper right plot of

**Figure 13.** Left plot: the QCD dijet cross section before and after the events are processed through the resonance-tagging algorithm, for LHC 14 TeV. Right plot: the mistag probability of QCD dijet events with the resonance tagging (RT) algorithm, defined as the ratio of mistags over the QCD cross section, without and with b-tagging, as a function of the mass point M. The mistag probability of QCD dijets at LHC 8 TeV is very similar. splitting of a quark or gluon. Note that while Pythia8 is known to underestimate the amount of QCD multi-jet topologies by a factor up to two with respect to…

**Figure 14.** Decomposition of the mistag probabilities according to the number of boosted-object tags in the event, without (left) and with (right) b-tagging. In addition, we demand that the two leading jets are separated in rapidity by less than ∆ymax. Note that the dijet cross sections flattens at small masses because there the selection cuts Eq. (40) have a sizable effect. In order to achieve an efficient QCD multijet event generation, for any candidate resonance mass M we have generated dijet events with a generation cut of pT ≥ M/5, and no generation cut in rapidity. To motivate this…

**Figure 15.** The model independent exclusion ranges in σ (pp → X) BR (X → HH) at the 95% confidence level for the production of a heavy resonance X which then decays into a Higgs boson pair, which decay subsequently into a bottom-antibottom pair. The left plot show the exclusion ranges at 8 TeV with L = 25 fb−1 while the right plot corresponds to 14 TeV with L = 500 fb−1 . (50 fb) at M ∼ 500 GeV at LHC 8 TeV (14 TeV), while at higher masses, M ∼ 2 TeV, the 4b final state is sensitive to cross sections as small as 1 fb at both energies. Note that the increase in luminosity when going from 8 to…

**Figure 16.** The expected number of events in the benchmark scenarios after both resonance tagging and b–tagging, at the LHC 8 (left plot) and 14 TeV (right plot). The integrated luminosities are L = 30 fb−1 at 8 TeV and L = 500 fb−1 at 14 TeV. nosities of L = 25 fb−1 at 8 TeV and of 500 fb−1 at 14 TeV. The model cross sections for the benchmark scenarios can be easily obtained from the results of Sect. 3, in particular from

**Figure 17.** Illustration of a signal mass peak superposed on the QCD background, for the case of an RS1 graviton with a mass of 1 TeV, in 14 TeV pp collisions. Candidate Resonance Mass ( TeV ) -1 3×10 -1 4×10 1 2 3 Cross Section ( fb ) -1 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 -1 LHC 8 TeV, L = 25 fb Excl. 95% CL (Res Tag) Excl. 95% CL (Res Tag + Btag) pp > G/R > HH (> 4b) G-Brane R-Comp R-Bulk G-Bulk Candidate Resonance Mass ( TeV ) -1 3×10 -1 4×10 1 2 3 Cross Section ( fb ) -1 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 -1 LHC 14 TeV, L = 500 fb Excl. 95% CL (Res Tag) Excl. 95% CL (Res Tag + Btag) pp > G/R > HH (> 4b)…

**Figure 18.** The 95% confidence level exclusion ranges at 8 TeV (left plot) and 14 TeV (right plot) compared to the specific cross sections of the four different model scenarios of

**Figure 19.** Left plot: the values of the massive KK graviton-gluon coupling cg that can be excluded at the 95% CL as a function of the graviton mass for 8 and 14 TeV. For 14 TeV we provide the results for both b-tagging scenarios. Right plot: same for the radion-gluon coupling κ φ g . TeV the 2H → 4b final state can access essentially all the relevant range, from the RS1 value cg = 1 down to the bulk value of cg = 1/35. For the case of the radion coupling κ φ g , we see that at 8 TeV we are sensitive to values down to κ φ g ' 0.06 around 750 GeV, while at 14 TeV the LHC can exclude a bulk ra

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1303.6636 by the authors.

References

Works cited (99)

[1]

S. D. Ellis, J. Huston, K. Hatakeyama, P. Loch and M. Tonnesmann, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60, 484 (2008) [arXiv:0712.2447 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[2]

G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 637 (2010) [arXiv:0906.1833 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[3]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 211801 (2010) [arXiv:1010.0203 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[4]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1301, 013 (2013) [arXiv:1210.2387 [hep-ex]]. 33

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[5]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1302.4794 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1301, 029 (2013) [arXiv:1210.1718 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[7]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 704, 123 (2011) [arXiv:1107.4771 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[8]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 708, 37 (2012) [arXiv:1108.6311 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[9]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], New J. Phys.13 (2011) 053044 [arXiv:1103.3864 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[10]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 694, 327 (2011) [arXiv:1009.5069 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[11]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2263 (2013) [arXiv:1210.4826 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[12]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1302.0531 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 718, 329 (2012) [arXiv:1208.2931 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[14]

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 042001 (2011) [arXiv:1105.2815 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[15]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1212, 086 (2012) [arXiv:1210.4813 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[16]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], ”Search for Multijet Resonances in the 8-jet Final State“, CMS-PAS-EXO-11-075

View on Pith
[17]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1204, 061 (2012) [arXiv:1202.6396 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[18]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1303.5338 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[19]

ATLAS Collaboration, ”Measurement of the b-tag Eﬃciency in a Sample of Jets Containing Muons with 5 fb−1 of Data from the ATLAS Detector”,ATLAS-CONF- 2012-043

View on Pith 2012
[20]

ATLAS Collaboration, ”Measurement of the Mistag Rate with 5 fb1 of Data Collected by the ATLAS Detector”, ATLAS-CONF-2012-040

View on Pith 2012
[21]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ”Light-quark and Gluon Jets in ATLAS: Calorimeter Response, Jet Energy Scale Systematics, and Sample Characterization”, ATLAS-CONF-2011-053

View on Pith 2011
[22]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1210.0441 [hep-ex]. 34

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1212.1910 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1910
[24]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86, 072006 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5369 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[25]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1303.4811 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1205, 128 (2012) [arXiv:1203.4606 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[27]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], ”Study of Jet Substructure in pp Colli- sions at 7 TeV in CMS”, CMS PAS JME-10-013

View on Pith
[28]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ”Performance of large-R jets and jet substruc- ture reconstruction with the ATLAS detector”, ATLAS-CONF-2012-065

View on Pith 2012
[29]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ”Studies of the impact and mitigation of pile-up on large radius and groomed jets in ATLAS at √s = 7 TeV”, ATLAS-CONF-2012- 066

View on Pith 2012
[30]

See, e.g., B. Dobrescu, K. Kong and R. Mahbubani, Phys. Lett. B670, 119 (2008); C. Kilic, T. Okui and R. Sundrum, JHEP 0807, 038 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[31]

O. Antunano, J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014003 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1652 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[32]

G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 86, 095023 (2012) [arXiv:1207.4496 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[33]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, arXiv:1210.8166 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[34]

R. Contino, C. Grojean, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 1005, 089 (2010) [arXiv:1002.1011 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[35]

R. S. Chivukula, M. Golden and E. H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 83 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[36]

A. Abdesselam, E. B. Kuutmann, U. Bitenc, G. Brooijmans, J. Butterworth, P. Bruckman de Renstrom, D. Buarque Franzosi and R. Buckingham et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1661 [arXiv:1012.5412 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[37]

A. Altheimer, S. Arora, L. Asquith, G. Brooijmans, J. Butterworth, M. Campanelli, B. Chapleau and A. E. Cholakianet al., J. Phys. G39, 063001 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0008 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[38]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1209, 029 (2012) [arXiv:1204.2488 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[39]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1209, 041 (2012) [arXiv:1207.2409 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[40]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1212, 015 (2012) [arXiv:1209.4397 [hep-ex]]. 35

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[41]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1301, 116 (2013) [arXiv:1211.2202 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[42]

R. D. Ball, S. Carrazza, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, J. Gao, N. Hartland, J. Huston and P. Nadolsky et al., arXiv:1211.5142 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[43]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008) [arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]]. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006) [hep-ph/0603175]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[44]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[45]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti and B. R. Webber, JHEP 9708, 001 (1997) [hep-ph/9707323]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[46]

J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin and G. P. Salam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 242001 [arXiv:0802.2470 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[47]

R. M. Harris and K. Kousouris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26, 5005 (2011) [arXiv:1110.5302 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[48]

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0812, 032 (2008) [arXiv:0810.1304 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[49]

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1539 (2011) [arXiv:1010.1759 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[50]

D. Krohn, J. Thaler and L. -T. Wang, JHEP 1002, 084 (2010) [arXiv:0912.1342 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[51]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012) [arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[52]

J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, JHEP 1103, 015 (2011) [arXiv:1011.2268 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[53]

S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion and J. R. Walsh, Phys. Rev. D 80, 051501 (2009) [arXiv:0903.5081 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[54]

P. Quiroga-Arias and S. Sapeta, arXiv:1209.2858 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[55]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [hep-ph/9905221]. H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2080 (2000) [hep- ph/9909255]. P. Nath, Part. Nucl. Lett. 104 (2001) 7 [hep-ph/0011177]. B. C. Al- lanach, K. Odagiri, M. A. Parker and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0009 (2000) 019 [hep- ph/0006114]. B. C. Allanach, K. Odag...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[56]

ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 129; CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 3061

View on Pith 2012
[57]

T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B479, 46 (1996); A. Belyaev, M. Drees, O. J. P. Eboli, J. K. Mizukoshi and S. F. Novaes, Phys. Rev. D60, 075008 (1999); A. A. B. Badezu and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D64, 035006 (2001); A. R. Zerwekh, C. O. Dib and R. Rosenfeld, JHEP 0605, 074 (2006); R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, M. Moretti, G. Panico, F. Piccinin...

View on Pith 1996
[58]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 1210, 112 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5001 [hep-ph]]. J. Cao, Z. Heng, L. Shang, P. Wan and J. M. Yang, arXiv:1301.6437 [hep-ph]. F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, arXiv:1301.3492 [hep-ph]. D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li and J. Wang, arXiv:1301.1245 [hep-ph]. J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Grober, M....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[59]

L. Randall, V. Sanz and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 0206, 008 (2002) [hep-th/0204038]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[60]

M. S. Carena, T. M. P. Tait and C. E. M. Wagner, Acta Phys. Polon. B 33, 2355 (2002) [hep-ph/0207056]. Y. Cui, T. Gherghetta and J. D. Wells, JHEP 0911, 080 (2009) [arXiv:0907.0906 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[61]

C. Cs´ aki, J. Hubisz and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 125015 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[62]

C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 63, 065002 (2001) [hep- th/0008151]

View on Pith 2001
[63]

T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 586, 141 (2000) [hep-ph/0003129]. T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 602, 3 (2001) [hep-ph/0012378]. Y. Grossman and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 474, 361 (2000) [hep-ph/9912408]. H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Lett. B 473 (2000) 43 [hep- ph/9911262]. A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[64]

C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman and R. Jackiw Annals Phys. 59, 42 (1970)

View on Pith 1970
[65]

D. Dominici, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion and M. Toharia, Nucl.Phys. B 671, 243 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[66]

B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion and M. Toharia, Phys. Lett. B 712, 70 (2012) [arXiv:1202.5017 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[67]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111801 (2012) [arXiv:1112.0688 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[68]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 714, 158 (2012) [arXiv:1206.1849 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[69]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1210.8389 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[70]

V. Barger and M. Ishida, Phys. Lett. B 709, 185 (2012) [arXiv:1110.6452 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[71]

H. de Sandes and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 85, 053003 (2012) [arXiv:1111.2006 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[72]

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011) [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[73]

K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 76, 036006 (2007) [hep-ph/0701186]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[74]

N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati and L. Randall, JHEP 0108 (2001) 017 [hep- th/0012148]

View on Pith 2001
[75]

J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 261602 [hep-ph/0501128]. L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 721 (2005) 79 [hep-ph/0501218]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[76]

C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 055006 [hep-ph/0305237]. G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, C. Grojean and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 035015 [hep-ph/0409126]. J. Hirn and V. Sanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 121803 [hep-ph/0606086]. J. Hirn and V. Sanz, JHEP 0703 (2007) 100 [hep- ph/0612239]. J. Hirn and V....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[77]

R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Comptes Rendus Physique 8 (2007) 1058. K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B719 (2005) 165 [hep-ph/0412089]. R. Con- tino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 671 (2003) 148 [hep-ph/0306259]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[78]

S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 031601 [arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]]. 38

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[79]

E. Katz, A. Lewandowski and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 74, 086004 (2006) [hep-ph/0510388]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[80]

R. Fok, C. Guimaraes, R. Lewis and V. Sanz, JHEP 1212, 062 (2012) [arXiv:1203.2917 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[81]

E. Halyo, Phys. Lett. B 271, 415 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[82]

A. A. Andrianov, V. A. Andrianov, V. Y. .Novozhilov and Y. .V. Novozhilov, JETP Lett. 43, 719 (1986) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, 557 (1986)]

View on Pith 1986
[83]

W. D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein and W. Skiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 111802 (2008) [arXiv:0708.1463 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[84]

S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 115012 [hep- ph/9805244]

View on Pith 1998
[85]

C. Csaki, J. Hubisz and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 125015 (2007) [arXiv:0705.3844 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[86]

N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1614 (2009) [arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[87]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1103, 136 (2011) [arXiv:1102.3194 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[88]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1211.4462 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[89]

M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, JHEP 0307, 001 (2003) [hep-ph/0206293]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[90]

M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti and R. Pittau, Nucl. Phys. B 632, 343 (2002) [hep- ph/0108069]

View on Pith 2002
[91]

Z. Bern et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 042001 [arXiv:1112.3940 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[92]

S. Badger, B. Biedermann, P. Uwer and V. Yundin, arXiv:1209.0100 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[93]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos and M. Worek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 162002 [arXiv:1002.4009 [hep-ph]]; Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 114017 [arXiv:1108.2851 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[94]

Y. Bai and J. Shelton, JHEP 1207, 067 (2012) [arXiv:1107.3563 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[95]

S. Dittmaier, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, R. Tanaka, S. Alekhin, J. Alwall and E. A. Bagnaschi et al., arXiv:1201.3084 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[96]

G. L. Bayatian et al. [CMS Collaboration], J. Phys. G 34, 995 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[97]

U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 69, 053004 (2004) [hep- ph/0310056]. 39

View on Pith 2004
[98]

T. Plehn and M. Spannowsky, J. Phys. G 39, 083001 (2012) [arXiv:1112.4441 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[99]

T. Plehn, G. P. Salam and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 111801 (2010) [arXiv:0910.5472 [hep-ph]]. 40

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

Forward citations

Cited by 33 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Full top quark mass dependence in Higgs boson pair production at NLO
hep-ph 2016-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The first fully differential NLO calculation of Higgs pair production with exact top quark mass shows that heavy-top approximations err by up to 50 percent in kinematic tails.
Soft Drop
hep-ph 2014-02 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Soft drop generalizes the modified mass-drop tagger with an angular exponent beta, and its beta = 0 energy-loss spectrum is Sudakov safe and largely independent of the strong coupling.
Higgs Boson Pair Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD
hep-ph 2013-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Full NNLO QCD corrections raise the LHC Higgs-pair production cross section at 14 TeV from 33 to 40 fb and cut the scale uncertainty to roughly 8 percent.
Two-loop virtual corrections to Higgs pair production
hep-ph 2013-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The two-loop virtual corrections to gluon-fusion Higgs pair production are computed in the heavy-top limit, giving an NNLO soft-virtual K-factor of 2.37 at the LHC, about 23 percent above NLO.
One-loop corrections to ALP couplings
hep-ph 2021-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors derive the full one-loop, off-shell set of ALP-SM effective couplings in the dimension-five linear ALP Lagrangian, verify them against known renormalization-group results, and illustrate their use with top...

Show 28 more citing papers

Probing the time structure of the quark-gluon plasma with top quarks
hep-ph 2017-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Hadronically decaying W bosons in top-antitop events carry a momentum-dependent delay before their decay products interact with the quark-gluon plasma, offering a new handle on the medium's time structure.
NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers
hep-ph 2017-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Full NLO QCD di-Higgs production with exact top quark mass dependence is matched to parton showers in POWHEG and MG5_aMC@NLO, and the shower effects are found to be smaller than the failure of the heavy-top approximat...
Parton Shower Uncertainties in Jet Substructure Analyses with Deep Neural Networks
hep-ph 2016-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A jet-image tagger trained on Pythia loses up to a factor of two in background rejection when applied to Herwig and Sherpa jets, and a pT-dependent image rescaling called zooming recovers 10 to 20 percent.
Search for a massive resonance decaying into a Higgs boson and a W or Z boson in hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No resonance is observed in the all-hadronic VH channel, and W-prime and Z-prime masses below about 1.6 to 1.7 TeV are excluded in the heavy vector triplet model B.
Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b} b\bar{b}$ final state from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No Higgs boson pair production is observed in the four-bottom-quark final state at 8 TeV; 95% CL upper limits of 3.2 (2.3) fb are set for a Kaluza-Klein graviton of mass 1.0 (1.5) TeV, and 202 fb for the non-resonant ...
Higgs pair production at next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy at the LHC
hep-ph 2015-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Threshold resummation at NNLL, matched to NNLO, raises the gluon-fusion Higgs pair cross section by about 7% at 14 TeV and cuts the perturbative scale uncertainty from about 8.5% to 5.5%.
What's in the Loop? The Anatomy of Double Higgs Production
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Closed-form threshold amplitudes for scalar-loop double-Higgs production, combined with the shape of the two-Higgs invariant mass spectrum, can distinguish scalar from fermion content in the gluon-fusion loop.
Effective field theory analysis of double Higgs production via gluon fusion
hep-ph 2015-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

With a corrected, NLO-enhanced background estimate and a binned di-Higgs mass analysis, the Higgs trilinear coupling is measurable to roughly 30% at a 100 TeV collider with 3 ab^-1, and only to order one at the 14 TeV LHC.
Top-quark mass effects in double and triple Higgs production in gluon-gluon fusion at NLO
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A reweighting method folds exact one-loop top-quark mass and width effects into NLO plus parton-shower predictions for double and triple Higgs production, giving 34.3 fb for HH and 0.089 fb for HHH at 14 TeV.
Search for massive resonances in dijet systems containing jets tagged as W or Z boson decays in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No resonance peak is found, and 95% CL lower mass limits are set at 3.2 TeV for q* to qW, 2.9 TeV for q* to qZ, 1.7 TeV for W' to WZ, and 1.2 TeV for GRS to WW.
Higgs pair production at the LHC with NLO and parton-shower effects
hep-ph 2014-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Next-to-leading-order QCD plus parton-shower predictions are presented for all six Standard Model Higgs-pair production channels at the LHC, with NLO corrections shown to shrink scale uncertainties, most strongly in g...
Phenomenology of the Higgs Effective Lagrangian via FeynRules
hep-ph 2013-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A public FeynRules/UFO implementation of the dimension-six Higgs effective Lagrangian enables MadGraph 5 simulations of non-standard Higgs interactions, with explicit gauge-to-mass-basis translation tables.
Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $\gamma\gamma\mathrm{b\overline{b}}$ final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess of Higgs boson pairs is seen in 35.9 fb^-1 of 13 TeV CMS data, and the resulting 95% CL limits constrain the Higgs self-coupling modifier to -11 < kappa_lambda < 17.
Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Higgs and EW symmetry breaking studies
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

At 100 TeV, Higgs production rates rise 10 to 60 fold over the LHC, enough to pin the trilinear self-coupling to a few percent and the top Yukawa coupling to about 1%.
Boosting Higgs pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state with multivariate techniques
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Including misidentified light and charm jets and a realistic pileup environment, the four-bottom final state yields S/sqrt(B) of about 3 at 3 ab^-1, enough for evidence of Higgs pair production at the HL-LHC.
Higgs boson pair production: top quark mass effects at NLO and NNLO
hep-ph 2015-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Finite top quark mass effects change the NNLO gluon-fusion Higgs pair production cross section by at most about 5%, so the infinite-top-mass approximation is adequate at that level.
Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons decaying to two bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No resonant HH to bbbb signal appears in 17.9 inverse femtobarns of 8 TeV CMS data, excluding RS1 radions from 300 to 1100 GeV and KK gravitons from 380 to 830 GeV at 95% confidence level.
Benchmarks for Higgs Effective Theory: Extended Higgs Sectors
hep-ph 2015-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Explicit dimension-six matching coefficients are derived for singlet, two-Higgs-doublet, and dilaton extensions of the Higgs sector, and used to estimate where the effective field theory breaks down.
Identification techniques for highly boosted W bosons that decay into hadrons
hep-ex 2014-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

A pruned jet mass window of 60 to 100 GeV plus N-subjettiness tau2/tau1 below 0.5 tags boosted hadronic W bosons with about 65% efficiency and 96% background rejection at 500 GeV, with a data-to-simulation efficiency ...
Higgs pair production via gluon fusion in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model
hep-ph 2014-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

NLO-plus-parton-shower predictions for all seven Two-Higgs-Doublet-Model Higgs pair final states show K-factors of 1.5 to 1.7, roughly halved scale uncertainties, and resonant heavy-Higgs enhancements of the light pai...
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: New Physics Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Twenty contributed studies from the 2013 Les Houches New Physics working group cover Higgs coupling fits, vector-like quark and composite Higgs benchmarks, SUSY constraints, flavour observables and dark matter, includ...
Standard Model Higgs boson pair production in the $(b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$ final state
hep-ph 2014-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Applying boosted jet substructure to the four-bottom-quark di-Higgs final state, the authors project a 95% confidence bound of roughly 1.2 times the Standard Model trilinear Higgs self-coupling at 3000 inverse femtobarns.
Probing the Higgs Portal at the LHC Through Resonant di-Higgs Production
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For a singlet-extended Higgs sector with a 270 or 370 GeV heavy state, a simulation of pp -> h2 -> h1h1 -> b bbar tau+ tau- suggests 5-sigma sensitivity with roughly 50 to 100 inverse femtobarns at 14 TeV, using stati...
Further on up the road: $hhjj$ production at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A full simulation of hh+2j production at the LHC shows gluon fusion dominates over weak boson fusion and that effective-field-theory estimates of the gluon fusion rate are unreliable.
Higgs pair production in the NMSSM at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Summed over the SM-like and a lighter NMSSM Higgs boson, gluon-fusion Higgs pair production at the 14 TeV LHC is never below the Standard Model rate and can reach roughly 2.5 times it, with larger enhancements in bb+g...
Gravity-mediated (or Composite) Dark Matter
hep-ph 2013-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Dark matter confined to the infrared brane of a warped extra dimension can annihilate through Kaluza-Klein gravitons and radions to reproduce the observed relic density, with a claimed dual description in a near-confo...
Search for two Higgs bosons in final states containing two photons and two bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2016-03 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess of Higgs boson pairs in the two-photon plus two-bottom-quark final state is observed in 8 TeV CMS data, and 95% confidence limits exclude a radion below 980 GeV and an RS1 KK graviton between 325 and 450 GeV.
Higgs boson potential at colliders: status and perspectives
hep-ph 2019-09 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Di-Higgs production is the direct route to the Higgs trilinear self-coupling; current LHC data constrain it to roughly minus five to twelve times the Standard Model value, and future colliders are projected to reach t...

How later papers used it

79 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 64 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 10 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 18 of the 100 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

4 later papers by other authors are listed below: 1 built on it and 3 used its method or tool. 2 more papers by the same authors are listed: 2 used its method or tool.

Builds on it 1 paper

Significantly expanded on the proposals of this paper and other works in developing a reconstruction strategy for third-generation squarks.

Searching for supersymmetry scalelessly (2016) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its method or tool 5 of 8 papers with this label · 2 by the same authors

Followed the scale-invariant tagging procedure of this paper, as implemented in a reference, to classify events by boosted Higgs candidate or resolved b-jet pair.

Revisiting $\mathbf{Vh(\rightarrow b \bar b)}$ at the LHC and FCC-hh (2022) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Since in our analysis, we combine these two classes of events, the tagging procedure we employ is a scale invariant one [ref] .

Improved Precision in $Vh(\rightarrow b\bar b)$ via Boosted Decision Trees (2024) · General setup of the physics analysis · 0.91
The mass ranges are decided according to the kinematic properties and Lorentz-boost factor, estimated by the quantity $/(+)$ [ref] , which defines similar angular properties.

Search for a new resonance decaying into two spin-0 bosons in a final state with two photons and two bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV (2023) · Nonresonant background separation · 0.88

By the same authors

Followed the scale-invariant resonance tagging method of this paper for its analysis strategy.

Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Higgs and EW symmetry breaking studies (2016) (same authors) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Followed a strategy similar to the scale-invariant resonance tagging of this paper.

Boosting Higgs pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state with multivariate techniques (2015) (same authors) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

78 arXiv papers cite this in 96 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

We show using this strategy that the LHC has sensitivity to the enhanced resonant production of Higgs boson pairs decaying into $b\bar{b}$ pairs in generic New Physics scenarios.

Scale-Invariant Resonance Tagging in Multijet Final States · 0.93

Papers citing it · 59 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

In this paper we develop a reconstruction strategy for third-generation squarks that accumulates sensitivity from a wide range of different phase space regions and for a variety of signal processes[We significantly expand on the proposals of [ref] and [ref] .

Searching for supersymmetry scalelessly · Introduction · 1.00

Uses its method or tool 7 papers

These are reconstructed using jet substructure and jet flavour-tagging techniques [ref] .

Search for a massive resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the four b quark final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV · Introduction · 0.98
The analysis strategy follows the scale-invariant resonance tagging method of Ref. [ref] .

Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Higgs and EW symmetry breaking studies · The $HH→bb̅bb̅$ channel · 1.00
To this end, we follow the scale-invariant tagging procedure [ref] as implemented in ref.

Revisiting $\mathbf{Vh(\rightarrow b \bar b)}$ at the LHC and FCC-hh · Event generation and analysis · 1.00

Compares with it 1 paper

However, the merging of $b$-jets would result in a different final state topology, aligning more closely with the one examined in Ref. [ref] .

Di-Higgs production via Axion-Like Particles · A smoking gun of the ALP-mediated di-Higgs production · 0.91

Cites it as support 4 papers

As it can be seen and shown in [ref] , the combination of jet substructure techniques, b-tagging requirement, and invariant mass cuts reduces the contribution of the QCD multijet background negligible.

Double Higgs Production with a Jet Substructure Analysis to Probe Extra Dimensions · Event selection · 0.97
The potential benefit of scale-invariant jet tagging has been noted in Refs. [ref] , motivating the addition of a zooming transformation to the jet preprocessing steps.

Meta-learning and data augmentation for mass-generalised jet taggers · Zooming · 0.99
Recent phenomenological studies have demonstrated that despite the fully hadronic final state being subject to a large multijet background, searches for new physics in the process have good sensitivity for both resonant [ref] and non-resonant signals [ref] .

Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b} b\bar{b}$ final state from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector · Introduction · 0.96

Cites it as background 20 papers

A series of studies have surveyed its observability in the $bb̅γγ$, $bb̅τ^+τ^-$, $bb̅W^+W^-$, $bb̅bb̅$, and $WW^*WW^*$ signal channels [ref] .

LHC Phenomenology of the Type II Seesaw Mechanism: Observability of Neutral Scalars in the Nondegenerate Case · Introduction · 0.90
Numerous studies have also been performed for Higgs pair production in new physics models [ref] .

Higgs pair production with SUSY QCD correction: revisited under current experimental constraints · Introduction · 0.96
Significant progress has been made in the studies on di-Higgs production considering either the higher-order radiative corrections within the SM, or the presence of a NP candidate [ref] .

Leptoquark-assisted Singlet-mediated Di-Higgs Production at the LHC · Introduction · 0.94

What it cites · 52 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 7 papers

Parton and hadron-level events were then clustered with the anti-$k_t$ jet algorithm [ref] with radius of $R=0.5$.

The anti-k_t jet clustering algorithm · Scale-invariant resonance tagging · 1.00
We computed the production cross section of the processes $p p →G$, $ϕ$ at leading order (LO) using Madgraph5 [ref] .

MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond · Production rates at the LHC · 1.00
In addition, in order to improve on resolution, jet masses are filtered [ref] as follows: the constituents of each tagged jet are reclustered with a smaller radius $R_filt=minΔR_sj,sj/2,R_f$, with $R_f=0.3$ and $ΔR_sj,sj$ the angular distance between the two subjets after mass-drop in the boosted case.

Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC · Scale-invariant resonance tagging · 1.00

Uses data or values from 4 papers

We have used $BRH→bb̅=0.577$ from the Higgs Cross Section Working Group recommendations [ref] .

Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Differential Distributions · Model independent exclusion limits · 1.00
The details depend not just on the detector, but also on the experimental jet reconstruction techniques.] for the detector mass resolution $f_m$ of 15% [ref] .

Searches for Dijet Resonances at Hadron Colliders · Scale-invariant resonance tagging · 0.98
The details depend not just on the detector, but also on the experimental jet reconstruction techniques.] for the detector mass resolution $f_m$ of 15% [ref] .

ATLAS search for new phenomena in dijet mass and angular distributions using pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV · Scale-invariant resonance tagging · 0.98

Cites as background 27 papers

New resonances and contact interactions have been searched for by ATLAS and CMS in final states with two jets [ref] , four jets [ref] , six jets [ref] , eight jets [ref] and up to ten jets for the semi-classical black holes searches [ref] .

Search for three-jet resonances in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Introduction · 0.89
New resonances and contact interactions have been searched for by ATLAS and CMS in final states with two jets [ref] , four jets [ref] , six jets [ref] , eight jets [ref] and up to ten jets for the semi-classical black holes searches [ref] .

Search for microscopic black holes in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Introduction · 0.89
New resonances and contact interactions have been searched for by ATLAS and CMS in final states with two jets [ref] , four jets [ref] , six jets [ref] , eight jets [ref] and up to ten jets for the semi-classical black holes searches [ref] .

Search for narrow resonances using the dijet mass spectrum in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Introduction · 0.89

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

S. D. Ellis, J. Huston, K. Hatakeyama, P. Loch and M. Tonnesmann, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60, 484 (2008) [arXiv:0712.2447 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[2] [2]

G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 637 (2010) [arXiv:0906.1833 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[3] [3]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 211801 (2010) [arXiv:1010.0203 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[4] [4]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1301, 013 (2013) [arXiv:1210.2387 [hep-ex]]. 33

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1302.4794 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1301, 029 (2013) [arXiv:1210.1718 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[7] [7]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 704, 123 (2011) [arXiv:1107.4771 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[8] [8]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 708, 37 (2012) [arXiv:1108.6311 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[9] [9]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], New J. Phys.13 (2011) 053044 [arXiv:1103.3864 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[10] [10]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 694, 327 (2011) [arXiv:1009.5069 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[11] [11]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2263 (2013) [arXiv:1210.4826 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[12] [12]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1302.0531 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [13]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 718, 329 (2012) [arXiv:1208.2931 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[14] [14]

T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 042001 (2011) [arXiv:1105.2815 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[15] [15]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1212, 086 (2012) [arXiv:1210.4813 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[16] [16]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], ”Search for Multijet Resonances in the 8-jet Final State“, CMS-PAS-EXO-11-075

View on Pith

[17] [17]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1204, 061 (2012) [arXiv:1202.6396 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[18] [18]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1303.5338 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[19] [19]

ATLAS Collaboration, ”Measurement of the b-tag Eﬃciency in a Sample of Jets Containing Muons with 5 fb−1 of Data from the ATLAS Detector”,ATLAS-CONF- 2012-043

View on Pith 2012

[20] [20]

ATLAS Collaboration, ”Measurement of the Mistag Rate with 5 fb1 of Data Collected by the ATLAS Detector”, ATLAS-CONF-2012-040

View on Pith 2012

[21] [21]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ”Light-quark and Gluon Jets in ATLAS: Calorimeter Response, Jet Energy Scale Systematics, and Sample Characterization”, ATLAS-CONF-2011-053

View on Pith 2011

[22] [22]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1210.0441 [hep-ex]. 34

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[23] [23]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1212.1910 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1910

[24] [24]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 86, 072006 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5369 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[25] [25]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [ CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1303.4811 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1205, 128 (2012) [arXiv:1203.4606 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[27] [27]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], ”Study of Jet Substructure in pp Colli- sions at 7 TeV in CMS”, CMS PAS JME-10-013

View on Pith

[28] [28]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ”Performance of large-R jets and jet substruc- ture reconstruction with the ATLAS detector”, ATLAS-CONF-2012-065

View on Pith 2012

[29] [29]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], ”Studies of the impact and mitigation of pile-up on large radius and groomed jets in ATLAS at √s = 7 TeV”, ATLAS-CONF-2012- 066

View on Pith 2012

[30] [30]

See, e.g., B. Dobrescu, K. Kong and R. Mahbubani, Phys. Lett. B670, 119 (2008); C. Kilic, T. Okui and R. Sundrum, JHEP 0807, 038 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[31] [31]

O. Antunano, J. H. Kuhn and G. Rodrigo, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014003 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1652 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[32] [32]

G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 86, 095023 (2012) [arXiv:1207.4496 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[33] [33]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, arXiv:1210.8166 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[34] [34]

R. Contino, C. Grojean, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 1005, 089 (2010) [arXiv:1002.1011 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[35] [35]

R. S. Chivukula, M. Golden and E. H. Simmons, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 83 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[36] [36]

A. Abdesselam, E. B. Kuutmann, U. Bitenc, G. Brooijmans, J. Butterworth, P. Bruckman de Renstrom, D. Buarque Franzosi and R. Buckingham et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1661 [arXiv:1012.5412 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[37] [37]

A. Altheimer, S. Arora, L. Asquith, G. Brooijmans, J. Butterworth, M. Campanelli, B. Chapleau and A. E. Cholakianet al., J. Phys. G39, 063001 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0008 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[38] [38]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1209, 029 (2012) [arXiv:1204.2488 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[39] [39]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1209, 041 (2012) [arXiv:1207.2409 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[40] [40]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1212, 015 (2012) [arXiv:1209.4397 [hep-ex]]. 35

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[41] [41]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1301, 116 (2013) [arXiv:1211.2202 [hep- ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[42] [42]

R. D. Ball, S. Carrazza, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, J. Gao, N. Hartland, J. Huston and P. Nadolsky et al., arXiv:1211.5142 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[43] [43]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008) [arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]]. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0605, 026 (2006) [hep-ph/0603175]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[44] [44]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) [arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[45] [45]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti and B. R. Webber, JHEP 9708, 001 (1997) [hep-ph/9707323]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[46] [46]

J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin and G. P. Salam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 242001 [arXiv:0802.2470 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[47] [47]

R. M. Harris and K. Kousouris, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A26, 5005 (2011) [arXiv:1110.5302 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[48] [48]

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0812, 032 (2008) [arXiv:0810.1304 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[49] [49]

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1539 (2011) [arXiv:1010.1759 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[50] [50]

D. Krohn, J. Thaler and L. -T. Wang, JHEP 1002, 084 (2010) [arXiv:0912.1342 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[51] [51]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012) [arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[52] [52]

J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, JHEP 1103, 015 (2011) [arXiv:1011.2268 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[53] [53]

S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion and J. R. Walsh, Phys. Rev. D 80, 051501 (2009) [arXiv:0903.5081 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[54] [54]

P. Quiroga-Arias and S. Sapeta, arXiv:1209.2858 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[55] [55]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999) [hep-ph/9905221]. H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2080 (2000) [hep- ph/9909255]. P. Nath, Part. Nucl. Lett. 104 (2001) 7 [hep-ph/0011177]. B. C. Al- lanach, K. Odagiri, M. A. Parker and B. R. Webber, JHEP 0009 (2000) 019 [hep- ph/0006114]. B. C. Allanach, K. Odag...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[56] [56]

ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 129; CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 3061

View on Pith 2012

[57] [57]

T. Plehn, M. Spira and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B479, 46 (1996); A. Belyaev, M. Drees, O. J. P. Eboli, J. K. Mizukoshi and S. F. Novaes, Phys. Rev. D60, 075008 (1999); A. A. B. Badezu and B. A. Kniehl, Phys. Rev. D64, 035006 (2001); A. R. Zerwekh, C. O. Dib and R. Rosenfeld, JHEP 0605, 074 (2006); R. Contino, M. Ghezzi, M. Moretti, G. Panico, F. Piccinin...

View on Pith 1996

[58] [58]

M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, JHEP 1210, 112 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5001 [hep-ph]]. J. Cao, Z. Heng, L. Shang, P. Wan and J. M. Yang, arXiv:1301.6437 [hep-ph]. F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, arXiv:1301.3492 [hep-ph]. D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li and J. Wang, arXiv:1301.1245 [hep-ph]. J. Baglio, A. Djouadi, R. Grober, M....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[59] [59]

L. Randall, V. Sanz and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 0206, 008 (2002) [hep-th/0204038]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[60] [60]

M. S. Carena, T. M. P. Tait and C. E. M. Wagner, Acta Phys. Polon. B 33, 2355 (2002) [hep-ph/0207056]. Y. Cui, T. Gherghetta and J. D. Wells, JHEP 0911, 080 (2009) [arXiv:0907.0906 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[61] [61]

C. Cs´ aki, J. Hubisz and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 125015 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[62] [62]

C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 63, 065002 (2001) [hep- th/0008151]

View on Pith 2001

[63] [63]

T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 586, 141 (2000) [hep-ph/0003129]. T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 602, 3 (2001) [hep-ph/0012378]. Y. Grossman and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 474, 361 (2000) [hep-ph/9912408]. H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Lett. B 473 (2000) 43 [hep- ph/9911262]. A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[64] [64]

C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman and R. Jackiw Annals Phys. 59, 42 (1970)

View on Pith 1970

[65] [65]

D. Dominici, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion and M. Toharia, Nucl.Phys. B 671, 243 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[66] [66]

B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion and M. Toharia, Phys. Lett. B 712, 70 (2012) [arXiv:1202.5017 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[67] [67]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111801 (2012) [arXiv:1112.0688 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[68] [68]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 714, 158 (2012) [arXiv:1206.1849 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[69] [69]

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1210.8389 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[70] [70]

V. Barger and M. Ishida, Phys. Lett. B 709, 185 (2012) [arXiv:1110.6452 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[71] [71]

H. de Sandes and R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 85, 053003 (2012) [arXiv:1111.2006 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[72] [72]

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011) [arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[73] [73]

K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 76, 036006 (2007) [hep-ph/0701186]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[74] [74]

N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati and L. Randall, JHEP 0108 (2001) 017 [hep- th/0012148]

View on Pith 2001

[75] [75]

J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 261602 [hep-ph/0501128]. L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 721 (2005) 79 [hep-ph/0501218]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[76] [76]

C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 055006 [hep-ph/0305237]. G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, C. Grojean and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 035015 [hep-ph/0409126]. J. Hirn and V. Sanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 121803 [hep-ph/0606086]. J. Hirn and V. Sanz, JHEP 0703 (2007) 100 [hep- ph/0612239]. J. Hirn and V....

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[77] [77]

R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Comptes Rendus Physique 8 (2007) 1058. K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B719 (2005) 165 [hep-ph/0412089]. R. Con- tino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 671 (2003) 148 [hep-ph/0306259]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[78] [78]

S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 031601 [arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]]. 38

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[79] [79]

E. Katz, A. Lewandowski and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 74, 086004 (2006) [hep-ph/0510388]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[80] [80]

R. Fok, C. Guimaraes, R. Lewis and V. Sanz, JHEP 1212, 062 (2012) [arXiv:1203.2917 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[81] [81]

E. Halyo, Phys. Lett. B 271, 415 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[82] [82]

A. A. Andrianov, V. A. Andrianov, V. Y. .Novozhilov and Y. .V. Novozhilov, JETP Lett. 43, 719 (1986) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, 557 (1986)]

View on Pith 1986

[83] [83]

W. D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein and W. Skiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 111802 (2008) [arXiv:0708.1463 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[84] [84]

S. Dawson, S. Dittmaier and M. Spira, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 115012 [hep- ph/9805244]

View on Pith 1998

[85] [85]

C. Csaki, J. Hubisz and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 76, 125015 (2007) [arXiv:0705.3844 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[86] [86]

N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1614 (2009) [arXiv:0806.4194 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[87] [87]

V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1103, 136 (2011) [arXiv:1102.3194 [hep-ex]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[88] [88]

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1211.4462 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[89] [89]

M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa, JHEP 0307, 001 (2003) [hep-ph/0206293]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[90] [90]

M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti and R. Pittau, Nucl. Phys. B 632, 343 (2002) [hep- ph/0108069]

View on Pith 2002

[91] [91]

Z. Bern et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 042001 [arXiv:1112.3940 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[92] [92]

S. Badger, B. Biedermann, P. Uwer and V. Yundin, arXiv:1209.0100 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[93] [93]

G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos and M. Worek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 162002 [arXiv:1002.4009 [hep-ph]]; Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 114017 [arXiv:1108.2851 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[94] [94]

Y. Bai and J. Shelton, JHEP 1207, 067 (2012) [arXiv:1107.3563 [hep-ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[95] [95]

S. Dittmaier, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, R. Tanaka, S. Alekhin, J. Alwall and E. A. Bagnaschi et al., arXiv:1201.3084 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[96] [96]

G. L. Bayatian et al. [CMS Collaboration], J. Phys. G 34, 995 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[97] [97]

U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D 69, 053004 (2004) [hep- ph/0310056]. 39

View on Pith 2004

[98] [98]

T. Plehn and M. Spannowsky, J. Phys. G 39, 083001 (2012) [arXiv:1112.4441 [hep- ph]]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[99] [99]

T. Plehn, G. P. Salam and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 111801 (2010) [arXiv:0910.5472 [hep-ph]]. 40

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010