Searches for new physics using the ttbar invariant mass distribution in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=8 TeV

CMS Collaboration

REVIEW

Searches for new physics using the ttbar invariant mass distribution in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=8 TeV

CMS Collaboration

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 9 Sep 2013 · 43 references

Pith's verdict: A solid 8 TeV CMS ttbar resonance search with real new limits; one internally inconsistent number in the non-resonant section needs a query.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 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 →

· 3 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1309.2030 (version 2)

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

CitationCMS Collaboration. "Searches for new physics using the ttbar invariant mass distribution in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=8 TeV." arXiv:1309.2030 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/EPTQLSOA

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

This is the CMS 8 TeV ttbar resonance search, and it does what it says: the Mtt spectrum is SM-like, and the limits are real. The new numbers are the 95% CL lower mass bounds of 2.1 TeV (narrow topcolor Z'), 2.7 TeV (10% width Z'), and 2.5 TeV (RS KK gluon), plus the first CMS limits on a gluon-fusion spin-zero resonance decaying to tt (0.8 pb at 500 GeV, 0.3 pb at 750 GeV). Those are several hundred GeV beyond the 7 TeV results, and combining the semi-leptonic and all-hadronic boosted channels buys about 25% at 2 TeV. The analysis is well specified: joint binned likelihood, nuisance parameters tabulated in Table 1, common systematics correlated across channels, backgrounds anchored to data control regions. Nothing circular here — the signal models are external and the background is data-driven. The paper is also honest about its modeling choices, which I appreciate. The soft spots are mostly the ones the authors name. The resolved semi-leptonic channel fits a smoothly falling pdf above 550 GeV, and the paper says outright that below that the SM isn't smooth; if the high-mass tail is mismodeled the fitted yield shifts, but the qualitative null result doesn't. The topcolor Z' cross sections are LO times 1.3, stated explicitly. The all-hadronic channel is NTMJ-dominated (6600 vs 510 tt events), so the non-resonant bound is systematics-limited; a 1-sigma NTMJ shift is roughly 40% of the tt yield, and shape information is what saves it. One thing I'd query: the non-resonant result reads 'S < 1.2 at the 95% CL, with a credible interval of 1.1-2.0 at 68% CL.' Those two cannot both describe the same posterior — a 68% interval of [1.1, 2.0] puts the 95th percentile well above 1.2. Either the interval or the limit is misquoted, and it matters because a posterior centered near 1.5 would be a mild excess, not a null. It is confined to the non-resonant subsection and does not touch the resonance limits, but it should be reconciled. Who's it for: anyone working on top resonances, warped extra dimensions, or boosted top tagging. It is a benchmark paper in that subfield. Worth a serious referee — the physics is standard and the checks are in place, but that S number needs to be fixed before it stands.

Referee report

Significance

If the result holds, it is a substantial extension of the LHC reach in the ttbar resonance sector: the Z' and KK-gluon mass limits improve on the earlier 7 TeV analyses by several hundred GeV, and the quoted scalar limits are the first CMS bounds on heavy Higgs-like particles decaying to ttbar. The claim to probe, for the first time, a region of warped-extra-dimension parameter space not excluded by precision measurements (abstract:s3, supported by Ref. [25]) is a genuine and well-defined physics milestone. The analysis is also unusually transparent for a letter: the nuisance parameters, their sizes, and their correlation scheme are fully tabulated in Table 1, the background decomposition is given in Table 2, and the data-driven NTMJ estimate and the top-tagging validation in the supplemental material make the procedure reproducible in principle. The combination of statistically independent channels in a single joint likelihood, with common systematics correlated across channels, is the right architecture and is executed cleanly.

Major objections (3)

[Final paragraph before the summary (non-resonant S bound)] The two numbers quoted for the non-resonant result cannot both describe the same posterior. The text states 'We find S < 1.2 at the 95% CL, with a credible interval of 1.1-2.0 at 68% CL.' For any unimodal posterior the 95th percentile must lie above the upper edge of a central 68% interval, so a 68% interval of [1.1, 2.0] is incompatible with a 95% upper limit of 1.2; if the posterior really is centred near 1.5, the 95% upper limit would be near 2, and the statement that the data are well described by the SM-only hypothesis would need to be reconciled with a mild excess. A second tension points the same way: the quoted signal efficiency for SM ttbar with Mtt > 1 TeV is (3.4 +/- 1.7) x 10^-4, a 50% relative uncertainty, which is far larger than the 20% margin between S = 1 and S = 1.2. Please state the posterior for S explicitly (or the profile-likelihood scan), reconcile the 68% interval with the 95% limit, and explain how a 20% bound is obtained given a 50% signal-efficiency uncertainty. This is the one place in the paper where the authors' own numbers could be read as a mild excess rather than a null result, so it should be corrected or clarified before publication.
[Semi-leptonic resolved analysis; Table 1] The resolved semi-leptonic channel extracts the signal by fitting the Mtt > 550 GeV spectrum to a smoothly falling background pdf taken directly from data. The authors acknowledge the limitation ('below this value the SM backgrounds are not described by a smoothly-falling pdf'), but the residual issue is that Table 1 lists no shape constraint on the background functional form for the resolved column, whereas the boosted columns carry a 'signal and background pdf 1 sigma' entry. The resolved channel supplies the low-mass end of the quoted limits, including the 0.8 pb and 0.3 pb bounds at 500 and 750 GeV that are presented as the first CMS limits on heavy Higgs-like states decaying to ttbar, so the choice of fit function is load-bearing for a claimed first result. Please document a robustness test: refit with at least one alternative functional form (e.g. a different power-law or exponential family), and/or a pseudo-data closure test in which a simulated SM sample with a known high-mass tail is fitted with the same procedure, and quote the shift in the extracted cross-section limits. If such a test was performed, report it; if not, the systematic should be added to Table 1.
[Boosted all-hadronic analysis; Table 2] In the all-hadronic channel the NTMJ background dominates the ttbar yield by more than an order of magnitude (6600 +/- 200 versus 510 +/- 90 events in Table 2), and Table 1 assigns a 5-20% uncertainty to the top-tagging mis-identification rate that drives the NTMJ estimate. A 5% shift in the NTMJ normalization corresponds to about 330 events, roughly 65% of the entire ttbar yield, and a 20% shift to about 2.6 times that yield; this is comparable to or larger than the 20% margin that defines the S < 1.2 bound, and it also feeds the boosted resonance limits through the joint fit. The paper states that NTMJ is predicted entirely from data, which is the right strategy, but it does not quantify how the extracted S and the boosted cross-section limits respond to the NTMJ normalization and mis-identification-rate uncertainties. Please provide that quantification, for example by quoting the S posterior under the +/-1 sigma NTMJ variations, or by showing the profile of the likelihood in the NTMJ nuisance parameter at the fitted signal point.

Minor objections (7)

[Table 2 and the resolved semi-leptonic channel] Table 2 gives post-fit yields only for the two boosted semi-leptonic categories and the all-hadronic category; the resolved semi-leptonic channel, which supplies the limits below about 1 TeV, has no corresponding yield table. Please add the observed event count, the fitted background yield, and the expected signal yield for the resolved channel so that the reader can judge the sensitivity directly.
[Abstract and results] The central compatibility statement (abstract:s2) is supported only qualitatively; no p-value or goodness-of-fit measure for the SM-only hypothesis is quoted for any channel. A single number per channel, or for the joint fit, would make the compatibility claim quantitative.
[Transition between resolved and boosted analyses] The paper states that the resolved and boosted semi-leptonic analyses have overlapping phase space and that the result is quoted from the boosted analysis above about 1 TeV and from the resolved analysis below it, where the expected sensitivities are equal. Please state explicitly whether events in the overlap region enter both fits, and quote how the limit curve of Fig. 2 changes if the transition point is varied by, say, +/-100 GeV.
[Boosted topology definition] The text refers to each top quark being produced with a high Lorentz boost '(>2)' without defining the quantity. Please state whether this is the top-quark gamma factor, the pT/m ratio, or another variable, so that the resolved/boosted boundary is unambiguous.
[Background validation] The statement that the methods were validated on simulated samples and that 'signal contamination was minimal in the signal-depleted regions' is not accompanied by a number. Please quote the estimated contamination, or the bound on it, for each signal-depleted region used.
[References] Reference [19] is given as 'Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 08 (2013) 1330013'; the volume for a 2013 article in that journal should be A 28. Please check and correct the citation.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption defines 'others' and 'NTMJ' for panels (a)-(c) but does not describe the background composition or the signal normalization shown in panel (d); the statement that a 1.0 pb cross section is used for the Z' normalization should be stated as applying to all four panels.

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

The paper

The paper claims

The LHC's top-pair mass spectrum shows no sign of a new heavy resonance, and that absence is converted into mass limits reaching 2.7 TeV.

The reading

The CMS collaboration asks whether the LHC's 2012 data contain a heavy particle that decays into a top quark and its antiparticle, which would appear as a bump in the distribution of the pair's invariant mass. The answer, over 19.7 inverse femtobarns of 8 TeV proton-proton collisions, is no: the measured spectrum follows the standard-model expectation across roughly 0.5 to 3 TeV. Because a null result is only as useful as the models it excludes, the paper turns it into 95% confidence upper limits on production cross section times branching fraction for concrete hypotheses: a narrow and a wide topcolor $Z'$ boson, a Randall-Sundrum Kaluza-Klein gluon, and a Higgs-like scalar produced by gluon fusion. The limits push the excluded mass ranges several hundred GeV beyond earlier searches and, for the first time, cover a region of warped-extra-dimension parameter space that precision measurements had left unconstrained. That matters because the top quark's large coupling to whatever breaks electroweak symmetry makes top-pair final states one of the most direct places to look for the mechanism that stabilizes the Higgs boson's mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reconstructed $tbar{t}$ invariant mass spectrum, treated as a bump hunt: a resonance would appear as a localized excess on a smoothly falling standard-model background. Two techniques make this work at high mass. First, boosted top tagging: for $M_{tbar{t}}$ above about 1 TeV the top decay products become collinear, so the analysis clusters them into single Cambridge-Aachen jets of size 0.8 and reverses the clustering sequence to find three or four subjets consistent with a merged top, validated in data against the reconstructed jet mass. Second, a background model: in the resolved channel the signal is extracted from a binned maximum-likelihood fit of the mass distribution above 550 GeV to a smooth probability density, with the signal parameterized as a Breit-Wigner; the boosted semi-leptonic and all-hadronic channels are fitted jointly with shared nuisance parameters, and the non-top multijet background in the all-hadronic channel is predicted from data using a measured misidentification probability. The transition at roughly 1 TeV, where the resolved and boosted analyses have equal expected sensitivity, sets which result is quoted in which mass range.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 19.7 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $8$ TeV, CMS searches for anomalous top-antitop production in three statistically independent channels: semi-leptonic events where the top pair is produced near threshold and each parton maps to a single jet (resolved), semi-leptonic events where each top is highly boosted and its decay products merge into one jet (boosted), and fully hadronic events in the boosted regime. The observed $tbar{t}$ invariant mass spectra agree with the standard-model prediction in every channel. The absence of a bump is translated into Bayesian 95% confidence upper limits on cross section times branching fraction, and into lower mass limits for specific models: a topcolor $Z'$ with $Gamma_{Z'}/M_{Z'} = 1.2%$ is excluded below 2.1 TeV, a $Z'$ with 10% width below 2.7 TeV, and a Randall-Sundrum Kaluza-Klein gluon below 2.5 TeV. For a narrow spin-zero resonance produced through gluon fusion with no interference, the cross section limits are 0.8 pb at 500 GeV and 0.3 pb at 750 GeV, the first CMS limits on heavy Higgs-like particles decaying to top pairs. A separate test on the all-hadronic sample bounds non-resonant enhancement of the high-mass tail at $S < 1.2$ at 95% confidence, a factor of two better than the previous published bound.

Load-bearing premise

In the resolved semi-leptonic channel the signal is extracted by fitting the mass spectrum above 550 GeV to a smoothly falling background shape that is not derived from first principles, so the quoted limits depend on the standard-model background really being featureless across the fit window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Topcolor $Z'$ bosons with relative widths of 1.2% and 10% are excluded below 2.1 TeV and 2.7 TeV respectively, extending earlier mass limits by several hundred GeV.
Randall-Sundrum Kaluza-Klein gluons decaying to top pairs are excluded below 2.5 TeV, which reaches a region of warped-extra-dimension parameter space not previously constrained by precision electroweak measurements.
Heavy Higgs-like scalars produced by gluon fusion and decaying to $tbar{t}$ now carry cross section limits of 0.8 pb at 500 GeV and 0.3 pb at 750 GeV, the first such CMS bounds.
Non-resonant new physics that would enhance the high-mass tail is bounded at $S < 1.2$ at 95% confidence for $M_{tbar{t}} > 1$ TeV, improving the previous limit by a factor of two.
The combination of semi-leptonic and all-hadronic boosted channels improves expected cross section limits at 2 TeV by about 25%, showing that jet-substructure channels add real reach at high mass.

Reading between the lines

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

If the Tevatron top forward-backward asymmetry were caused by a heavy mediator, the same mediator would typically raise the $tbar{t}$ rate at high invariant mass; this null result constrains that class of explanations, though the paper does not convert its limits into asymmetry-model parameters.
The same mass spectrum, interpreted as a differential cross section rather than a bump hunt, is a measurement of the standard-model $tbar{t}$ tail; a future precision extraction of that tail at 1-3 TeV would independently test whether the smooth background parameterization used here is adequate.
Because the boosted and resolved analyses meet at about 1 TeV, the quoted limit curve has a seam there; a global fit that lets both topologies contribute across the overlap, rather than switching between them, could tighten the intermediate-mass region.
The top-tagging efficiency correction of $93 \pm 5\%$ from a signal-depleted sideband is a small but real lever: a future analysis with a larger boosted-top calibration sample would shrink this systematic and correspondingly harden the high-mass limits.

Original abstract

Searches for anomalous top quark-antiquark production are presented, based on pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV. The data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 inverse femtobarns, were collected with the CMS detector at the LHC. The observed ttbar invariant mass spectrum is found to be compatible with the standard model prediction. Limits on the production cross section times branching fraction probe, for the first time, a region of parameter space for certain models of new physics not yet constrained by precision measurements.

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, 3,587 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.63 · states limitation 0.27 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.40 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.61 · compares with prior results 0.77 · 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.

Searches for anomalous top quark-antiquark production are presented, based on pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV. The data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 inverse femtobarns, were collected with the CMS detector at the LHC. The observed ttbar invariant mass spectrum is found to be compatible with the standard model prediction. Limits on the production cross section times branching fraction probe, for the first time, a region of parameter space for certain models of new physics not yet constrained by precision measurements.

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	Searches for anomalous top quark-antiquark production are presented, based on pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV.	contribution 1.00	0.92	0.04	asserted 0.86
s1	The data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 inverse femtobarns, were collected with the CMS detector at the LHC.	method 1.00	0.79	0.02	asserted 0.99
s2	The observed ttbar invariant mass spectrum is found to be compatible with the standard model prediction.	result 0.99	0.95	0.77	asserted 0.85
s3	Limits on the production cross section times branching fraction probe, for the first time, a region of parameter space for certain models of new physics not yet constrained by precision measurements.	interpretation 0.54	0.90	0.29	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.79.

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.** Comparison between data and SM prediction for reconstructed

**Figure 2.** The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction as a

**Figure 3.** Jet mass distribution for fully-merged W decay products (a) and fully-merged top

**Figure 4.** Plots from Fig. 1, including plots of the ratio of data and total expected background

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1309.2030 by the authors.

References

Works cited (43)

[25]

H. Davoudiasl, S. Gopalakrishna, E. Ponton, and J. Santiago, “Warped 5-dimensional models: phenomenological status and experimental prospects”, New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 075011, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/7/075011, arXiv:0908.1968

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[1]

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[2]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[3]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at√s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[4]

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3, arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[5]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[6]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactiﬁcation”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4690, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690, arXiv:hep-th/9906064

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[7]

K. Agashe et al., “CERN LHC signals from warped extra dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 015003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.015003, arXiv:hep-ph/0612015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[8]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, “Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction”, Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001) 232, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00741-9, arXiv:hep-ph/0105239. References 9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[9]

J. L. Rosner, “Prominent decay modes of a leptophobic Z′”, Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 113, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)01022-2, arXiv:hep-ph/9607207

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[10]

R. M. Harris and S. Jain, “Cross sections for leptophobic topcolor Z′ decaying to top-antitop”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2072, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2072-4 , arXiv:1112.4928

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[11]

P . H. Frampton and S. L. Glashow, “Chiral color: An alternative to the standard model”, Phys. Lett. B 190 (1987) 157, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8 1987
[12]

D. Choudhury, R. M. Godbole, R. K. Singh, and K. Wagh, “Top production at the Tevatron/LHC and nonstandard, strongly interacting spin one particles”, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 69, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.057, arXiv:0705.1499

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[13]

D. Dicus, A. Stange, and S. Willenbrock, “Higgs decay to top quarks at hadron colliders”, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 126, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91017-0, arXiv:hep-ph/9404359

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[14]

R. Frederix and F. Maltoni, “Top pair invariant mass distribution: A window on new physics”, JHEP 01 (2009) 047, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/047, arXiv:0712.2355

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[15]

K. Lannon, F. Margaroli, and C. Neu, “Measurements of the production, decay and properties of the top quark: A review”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2120, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2120-0 , arXiv:1201.5873

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[16]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and M. Perez-Victoria, “Probing the Tevatron tt asymmetry at LHC”, JHEP 05 (2011) 034, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2011)034, arXiv:1103.2765

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[17]

C. Delaunay et al., “Implications of the CDF tt forward-backward asymmetry for hard top physics”, JHEP 08 (2011) 031, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2011)031, arXiv:1103.2297

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[18]

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008
[19]

CDF/D0 Collaboration, “Top quark physics at the Tevatron”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 08 (2013) 1330013, doi:10.1142/S0217751X13300135, arXiv:1302.3628

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[20]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for anomalous tt production in the highly-boosted all-hadronic ﬁnal state”, JHEP 09 (2012) 029, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)029, arXiv:1204.2488

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[21]

ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for tt resonances in the lepton plus jets ﬁnal state with ATLAS using 4.7 fb−1 of pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 012004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.012004, arXiv:1305.2756

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[22]

ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for tt resonances in lepton+jets events with highly boosted top quarks collected in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 09 (2012) 041, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)041, arXiv:1207.2409

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[23]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant t¯t production in lepton+jets events in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, JHEP 12 (2012) 015, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)015, arXiv:1209.4397. 10 References

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[24]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for Z′ resonances decaying to t¯t in dilepton+jets ﬁnal states in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 072002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.072002, arXiv:1211.3338

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[26]

CMS Collaboration, “Particle–Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and EmissT ”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, 2009

View on Pith 2009
[27]

M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 , arXiv:1111.6097

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[28]

M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[29]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”, JHEP 08 (1997) 001, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[30]

M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, “Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deep- inelastic scattering”, (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9907280. DESY-PROC 1999-02

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[31]

CMS Collaboration, “Identiﬁcation of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment”, JINST 8 (2013) P04013, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013, arXiv:1211.4462

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[32]

D. E. Kaplan, K. Rehermann, M. D. Schwartz, and B. Tweedie, “Top Tagging: A method for identifying boosted hadronically decaying top quarks”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 142001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.142001, arXiv:0806.0848

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[33]

S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP 06 (2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[34]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[35]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with√s = 7 TeV and comparison with√s = 0.9 TeV”, JHEP 09 (2011) 109, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2011)109, arXiv:1107.0330

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[36]

J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph 5: Going beyond”, JHEP 06 (2011) 128, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128, arXiv:1106.0522

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[37]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[38]

P . M. Nadolsky et al., “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 013004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004, arXiv:0802.0007

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[39]

H.-L. Lai et al., “New parton distributions for collider physics”, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024, arXiv:1007.2241. References 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[40]

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity based on pixel cluster counting - Summer 2013 update”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[41]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the t¯t production cross section in pp collisions at 7 TeV in lepton + jets events using b-quark jet identiﬁcation”, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 092004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.092004, arXiv:1108.3773

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[42]

J. Pumplin et al., “Uncertainties of predictions from parton distribution functions. 2. The Hessian method”, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2001) 014013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.014013, arXiv:hep-ph/0101032

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[43]

J. Gao et al., “Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the heavy resonance production and decay into top quark pair at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 014020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014020, arXiv:1004.0876. 12 A Supplemental Material (a) Hadronic W Jet Mass [GeV] 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Events / 5 GeV 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 160...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

Forward citations

Cited by 17 Pith papers

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

Search for heavy Higgs bosons $A/H$ decaying to a top quark pair in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2017-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

ATLAS finds no significant excess in the top pair invariant mass spectrum and excludes low tan beta values for heavy pseudoscalar or scalar Higgs bosons above 500 GeV in a type-II 2HDM.
R-axion at colliders
hep-ph 2017-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Existing collider and B-factory data push the R-axion decay constant above roughly a few to tens of TeV for masses between 2 GeV and 2 TeV, with invisible decays into Goldstini as the sharpest discriminator.
What is the gamma gamma resonance at 750 GeV?
hep-ph 2015-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

If the 750 GeV diphoton excess is a real resonance, it needs percent-level couplings to gluons and photons, and if its apparent 45 GeV width is genuine it points to a strongly interacting sector.
Search for top-quark partners with charge 5/3 in the same-sign dilepton final state
hep-ex 2013-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No excess of same-sign dilepton events beyond standard-model expectations, so CMS excludes top-quark partners of charge 5/3 with masses below 800 GeV at 95% confidence, assuming decay to tW.
Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques
hep-ex 2020-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Deep-learning taggers built on particle-flow candidates and secondary vertices reject QCD background up to ten times better than cut-based boosted-object taggers at the same signal efficiency, and their data-to-simula...

Show 12 more citing papers

Search for resonant $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No resonance appears in the top-antitop mass spectrum of 35.9 inverse femtobarns of 13 TeV CMS data, excluding leptophobic Z-prime bosons up to 3.80, 5.25, and 6.65 TeV for widths of 1, 10, and 30 percent, and Kaluza-...
Lepton-flavor universality violation in $R_K$ and $R_{D^{(*)}}$ from warped space
hep-ph 2017-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A soft-wall warped model can accommodate R_K with composite b_L and mu_L, but fitting R_D(*) needs a composite tau_L that is in tension with the measured Z-to-tau-left coupling.
Tricking Landau-Yang: How to obtain the diphoton excess from a vector resonance
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A new Z' boson decaying to a photon plus a GeV-scale scalar, whose two photons merge in the calorimeter, can reproduce the 750 GeV diphoton excess without violating the Landau-Yang theorem.
The 750 GeV diphoton excess at the LHC and dark matter constraints
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A 750 GeV scalar decaying partly to dark matter can explain the diphoton bump's large rate and broad width, but relic density, direct detection, and gamma-ray searches exclude much of the required coupling range.
Goldstones in Diphotons
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Of three Goldstone-type explanations for the 750 GeV diphoton excess, a CP-odd pseudo-Goldstone boson with a large electromagnetic anomaly and the sgoldstino survive Run-1 constraints, while the minimal dilaton does not.
Remarks on scale separation in flux vacua
hep-th 2015-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The Maldacena-Nunez no-go theorem extends to exclude scale-separated anti-de Sitter flux vacua in 10- and 11-dimensional supergravity unless negative-tension sources or large dilaton gradients are present.
Search for resonant t t-bar production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No resonant excess appears in 19.7 fb^-1 of 8 TeV CMS data, excluding narrow topcolor Z' resonances below 2.4 TeV, 10%-width Z' below 2.9 TeV, and Randall-Sundrum Kaluza-Klein gluons below 2.8 TeV at 95% confidence.
A search for $t\bar{t}$ resonances using lepton-plus-jets events in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV with the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2015-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

No top-pair resonance appears in 20.3 fb^-1 of ATLAS 8 TeV data, excluding a narrow leptophobic Z' below 1.8 TeV and a 15.3%-width Kaluza-Klein gluon below 2.2 TeV at 95% confidence.
Theory for Baryon Number and Dark Matter at the LHC
hep-ph 2014-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The authors derive an upper bound of about 35 TeV on the baryon-number symmetry breaking scale from the dark matter relic density, and show that the model's Z' and heavy Higgs decays into dark matter and top quarks gi...
Higgs singlet boson as a diphoton resonance in a vector-like quark model
hep-ph 2015-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A Higgs singlet coupled to vector-like triplet quarks reproduces the 750 GeV diphoton excess with a roughly 1 pb production cross section and a 1.7 percent diphoton branching ratio.
Implications of diphoton searches for a Radion in the Bulk-Higgs Scenario
hep-ph 2015-12 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

Diphoton searches at the LHC are the most sensitive probe of a bulk-Higgs radion, already excluding large regions of its parameter space, especially at small warp factors.
Composite Higgses
hep-ph 2014-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Composite Higgs models are classified by their Higgs potential and Yukawa structure, and every variant, including little, holographic, twin, and dilatonic Higgs, requires fine-tuning of at least a few percent.

How later papers used it

66 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 54 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 23 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 23 of the 103 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

3 later papers by other authors are listed below: 2 used its data or values and 1 compared its own results with it. 1 more paper by the same authors is listed: 1 used its method or tool.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 4 papers with this label · 1 by the same authors

By the same authors

Used a data-driven technique similar to that described in this paper for its NTMJ estimate.

Search for t t-bar resonances in highly boosted lepton+jets and fully hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV (2017) (same authors) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its data or values 2 of 19 papers with this label

Used this paper's CMS search for resonances decaying to ttbar.

Phenomenology of Induced Electroweak Symmetry Breaking (2014) · 0.94 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Imposed the additional constraints provided by this paper's CMS semi-leptonic ttbar resonance search in the 500 GeV to 1 TeV mass range.

Radion/Dilaton-Higgs Mixing Phenomenology in Light of the LHC (2013) · 0.85 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Compares with it 1 of 7 papers with this label

Showed a comparison of its own result for the distribution within scenario 1 with this paper's CMS analysis at 8 TeV center-of-mass energy using 19.7 fb^-1 of data.

Heavy Higgs boson resonances and their decay into top quarks at the LHC (2016) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

65 arXiv papers cite this in 102 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 citing it · 55 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 4 papers

This is done by constructing a two-term $χ^2$ function, based on the masses of the reconstructed candidates [ref] .

Search for resonant t t-bar production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Lepton+jets channel · 0.99
For the NTMJ estimate, we use a data-driven technique similar to that described in Ref. [ref] .

Search for t t-bar resonances in highly boosted lepton+jets and fully hadronic final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV · Fully hadronic channel · 1.00
The QCD multijet background is estimated from data, using a method similar to the techniques described in Ref. [ref] .

Search for resonant $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV · Fully hadronic channel · 1.00

Uses its data or values 19 papers

We show that the data reported by the ATLAS [ref] and the CMS [ref] Collaborations excluding a heavy resonance in the $tt̅$ channel eliminate significant regions in the $n = 1$ KK-gluon and KK-quark mass plane.

LHC limits on KK-parity non-conservation in the strong sector of universal extra-dimension models · Introduction · 0.97
The CMS $8$ TeV search for $tt̅$ resonances [ref] sets un upper limit of $σ_tt̅<0.3$ pb on a narrow scalar resonance at $750$ GeV.

Heavy Higgs decay to $t\bar{t} Z$ and constraints on a $750$ GeV pseudoscalar · The $750$ GeV diphoton excess from $A→γγ$ · 0.98
The upper bounds at the $95%$ confidence level on cross sections of various final states produced from a resonance with $M=750$ GeV and $Γ=45$ GeV, are given as $σ·BR (ZZ)<12 fb$ [ref] , $σ·BR (hh)<39 fb$ [ref] , $σ·BR (tt̅) <550 fb$ [ref] and $σ·BR (jj)<2.5 pb$ [ref] .

The Diphoton Excess from an Exceptional Supersymmetric Standard Model · Diphoton excess · 0.99

Compares with it 7 papers

The predictions are compared with the results on $tt̅$ resonance production signature at the LHC running at 8 TeV $pp$ centre of momentum energy [ref] .

LHC limits on KK-parity non-conservation in the strong sector of universal extra-dimension models · Conclusions · 0.98
In mttbar_CMS we show for the distribution a comparison of 8 TeV data from the CMS experiment [ref] with theoretical predictions obtained within scenario 1.

Production of heavy Higgs bosons and decay into top quarks at the LHC · Results · 0.86
In fig:CMS we show a comparison of our result for the distribution within scenario 1 with a CMS analysis [ref] at 8 TeV center-of-mass energy using 19.7 fb$^-1$ of data.

Heavy Higgs boson resonances and their decay into top quarks at the LHC · Results · 1.00

Cites it as support 1 paper

The AK jet energy corrections have been shown to be applicable to CA jets [ref] .

Search for W' to tb in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV · Event reconstruction · 0.96

Cites it as background 8 papers

First experimental attempts to search for heavy spin-zero states $ϕ$ in the $$ decay channel at the LHC were made by the CMS [ref] and ATLAS [ref] experiments.

Production of heavy Higgs bosons and decay into top quarks at the LHC · Introduction · 0.95
Searches for heavy particles decaying into a pair have been performed with the ATLAS and CMS experiments using $pp$ collisions at = 7 [ref] , 8 [ref] and 13 [ref] .

Search for $t\bar{t}$ resonances in fully hadronic final states in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector · Introduction · 0.96
The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations have performed searches for such resonances in their proton-proton ($$) collision data sets at centre-of-mass energies $√(s) = 8$ [ref] and 13 [ref] , leading to stringent exclusion limits on the product of the resonance cross section and branching fraction, and therefore also on the resonance masses when interpreted in the context of specific models.

Search for a heavy resonance decaying to a top quark and a vector-like top quark in the lepton+jets final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV · Introduction · 0.93

What it cites · 8 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 14 papers

Jets are identified as $$-quark jets if they satisfy the combined secondary vertex algorithm defined in Ref. [ref] .

Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment · Introduction · 1.00
This algorithm [ref] , aiming to identify the top quark decay products within CA8 jets, reverses the jet-clustering sequence by iteratively separating the jet into subjets until three or four subjets with sufficient $$ are found.

Top-tagging: A Method for Identifying Boosted Hadronic Tops · Introduction · 1.00
SM top-quark production is modeled with the next-to-leading-order (NLO) generator (v1.0) [ref] , interfaced with 6 (v6.2.24) [ref] for parton showering with tune Z2$^*$ [ref] .

A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX · Introduction · 1.00

Uses data or values from 2 papers

As the cross section calculation is available for this model at LO only, the predictions are multiplied by a factor of 1.3 to account for higher-order effects [ref] .

Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to a heavy resonance production and decay into top quark pair at the LHC · Introduction · 0.84
The specific example shown in Fig. [ref] and given by the dashed line refers to a topcolor $$ with $Γ_/M_=1.2$% based on predictions from Ref. [ref] .

Cross Sections for Leptophobic Topcolor Z' decaying to top-antitop · Introduction · 0.90

Compares with 8 papers

We find $𝒮 < 1.2$ at the 95% CL, with a credible interval of 1.1–2.0 at 68% CL, a factor of two improvement over the previously published limits [ref] .

Search for anomalous t t-bar production in the highly-boosted all-hadronic final state · Introduction · 0.99
Compared to the results of previous analyses [ref] for specific models [ref] , the lower limits on the masses of these resonances have been improved by several hundred $$.

A search for ttbar resonances in the lepton plus jets final state with ATLAS using 4.7 fb^-1 of pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Introduction · 0.99
Compared to the results of previous analyses [ref] for specific models [ref] , the lower limits on the masses of these resonances have been improved by several hundred $$.

Cross Sections for Leptophobic Topcolor Z' decaying to top-antitop · Introduction · 0.99

Cites as background 12 papers

Other new gauge bosons have been proposed, referred to generically as $$, that also couple preferentially to $$ pairs [ref] .

Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction · Introduction · 0.90
Other new gauge bosons have been proposed, referred to generically as $$, that also couple preferentially to $$ pairs [ref] .

Cross Sections for Leptophobic Topcolor Z' decaying to top-antitop · Introduction · 0.90
Other new gauge bosons have been proposed, referred to generically as $$, that also couple preferentially to $$ pairs [ref] .

Prominent Decay Modes of a Leptophobic Z' · Introduction · 0.90

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] [25]

H. Davoudiasl, S. Gopalakrishna, E. Ponton, and J. Santiago, “Warped 5-dimensional models: phenomenological status and experimental prospects”, New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 075011, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/7/075011, arXiv:0908.1968

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[2] [1]

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[3] [2]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[4] [3]

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at√s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[5] [4]

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3, arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[6] [5]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[7] [6]

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactiﬁcation”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4690, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690, arXiv:hep-th/9906064

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[8] [7]

K. Agashe et al., “CERN LHC signals from warped extra dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 015003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.015003, arXiv:hep-ph/0612015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[9] [8]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, “Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction”, Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001) 232, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00741-9, arXiv:hep-ph/0105239. References 9

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[10] [9]

J. L. Rosner, “Prominent decay modes of a leptophobic Z′”, Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 113, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)01022-2, arXiv:hep-ph/9607207

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[11] [10]

R. M. Harris and S. Jain, “Cross sections for leptophobic topcolor Z′ decaying to top-antitop”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2072, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2072-4 , arXiv:1112.4928

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[12] [11]

P . H. Frampton and S. L. Glashow, “Chiral color: An alternative to the standard model”, Phys. Lett. B 190 (1987) 157, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8 1987

[13] [12]

D. Choudhury, R. M. Godbole, R. K. Singh, and K. Wagh, “Top production at the Tevatron/LHC and nonstandard, strongly interacting spin one particles”, Phys. Lett. B 657 (2007) 69, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.057, arXiv:0705.1499

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[14] [13]

D. Dicus, A. Stange, and S. Willenbrock, “Higgs decay to top quarks at hadron colliders”, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 126, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91017-0, arXiv:hep-ph/9404359

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[15] [14]

R. Frederix and F. Maltoni, “Top pair invariant mass distribution: A window on new physics”, JHEP 01 (2009) 047, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/047, arXiv:0712.2355

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[16] [15]

K. Lannon, F. Margaroli, and C. Neu, “Measurements of the production, decay and properties of the top quark: A review”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2120, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2120-0 , arXiv:1201.5873

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[17] [16]

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and M. Perez-Victoria, “Probing the Tevatron tt asymmetry at LHC”, JHEP 05 (2011) 034, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2011)034, arXiv:1103.2765

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[18] [17]

C. Delaunay et al., “Implications of the CDF tt forward-backward asymmetry for hard top physics”, JHEP 08 (2011) 031, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2011)031, arXiv:1103.2297

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[19] [18]

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

View on Pith doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

[20] [19]

CDF/D0 Collaboration, “Top quark physics at the Tevatron”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 08 (2013) 1330013, doi:10.1142/S0217751X13300135, arXiv:1302.3628

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[21] [20]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for anomalous tt production in the highly-boosted all-hadronic ﬁnal state”, JHEP 09 (2012) 029, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)029, arXiv:1204.2488

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[22] [21]

ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for tt resonances in the lepton plus jets ﬁnal state with ATLAS using 4.7 fb−1 of pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 012004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.012004, arXiv:1305.2756

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[23] [22]

ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for tt resonances in lepton+jets events with highly boosted top quarks collected in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 09 (2012) 041, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)041, arXiv:1207.2409

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[24] [23]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant t¯t production in lepton+jets events in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, JHEP 12 (2012) 015, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)015, arXiv:1209.4397. 10 References

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[25] [24]

CMS Collaboration, “Search for Z′ resonances decaying to t¯t in dilepton+jets ﬁnal states in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 072002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.072002, arXiv:1211.3338

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[26] [26]

CMS Collaboration, “Particle–Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and EmissT ”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, 2009

View on Pith 2009

[27] [27]

M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 , arXiv:1111.6097

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[28] [28]

M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm”, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, arXiv:0802.1189

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[29] [29]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”, JHEP 08 (1997) 001, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[30] [30]

M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, “Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deep- inelastic scattering”, (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9907280. DESY-PROC 1999-02

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[31] [31]

CMS Collaboration, “Identiﬁcation of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment”, JINST 8 (2013) P04013, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013, arXiv:1211.4462

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[32] [32]

D. E. Kaplan, K. Rehermann, M. D. Schwartz, and B. Tweedie, “Top Tagging: A method for identifying boosted hadronically decaying top quarks”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 142001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.142001, arXiv:0806.0848

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[33] [33]

S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP 06 (2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[34] [34]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual”, JHEP 05 (2006) 026, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[35] [35]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with√s = 7 TeV and comparison with√s = 0.9 TeV”, JHEP 09 (2011) 109, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2011)109, arXiv:1107.0330

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[36] [36]

J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph 5: Going beyond”, JHEP 06 (2011) 128, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128, arXiv:1106.0522

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[37] [37]

T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[38] [38]

P . M. Nadolsky et al., “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables”, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 013004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004, arXiv:0802.0007

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[39] [39]

H.-L. Lai et al., “New parton distributions for collider physics”, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 074024, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.074024, arXiv:1007.2241. References 11

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[40] [40]

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity based on pixel cluster counting - Summer 2013 update”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-13-001, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[41] [41]

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the t¯t production cross section in pp collisions at 7 TeV in lepton + jets events using b-quark jet identiﬁcation”, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 092004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.092004, arXiv:1108.3773

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[42] [42]

J. Pumplin et al., “Uncertainties of predictions from parton distribution functions. 2. The Hessian method”, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2001) 014013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.014013, arXiv:hep-ph/0101032

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[43] [43]

J. Gao et al., “Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the heavy resonance production and decay into top quark pair at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 014020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.014020, arXiv:1004.0876. 12 A Supplemental Material (a) Hadronic W Jet Mass [GeV] 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Events / 5 GeV 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 160...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010