Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Electroweak-QCD interference in hadronic vector bosons at LHC

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Electroweak-QCD interference can shift hadronic W and Z mass peaks by several GeV, while leaving the boosted peaks currently measured at the LHC essentially unchanged.

desk verdict A careful LO study of EW-QCD interference in hadronic V decays that quantifies the effect across many phase-space regions; the boosted W/Z conclusions are solid, but the Z numbers carry an acknowledged NLO color-singlet caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08330 v2 pith:EMOQUL2D submitted 2019-08-22 hep-ph

Cathy Ding , Ben Fuller , Eleanor Jones , Aran Martin , William Murray This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords electroweak-QCDinterferencehadronicvectorbosondecaysWmasspeakZboostedbosonsLHCQCDbackgroundsemileptonicWWproduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tests the standard LHC assumption that hadronic $W$ and $Z$ bosons can be simulated independently of their QCD background. It shows that interference between the electroweak production amplitude and the QCD amplitude for the same quark-antiquark final state shifts the reconstructed mass peaks, and that detector smearing enlarges the shift by roughly an order of magnitude, so an inclusive $Z\to uu$ peak can move by more than $3\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$. However, for the boosted $W$ and $Z$ bosons that experiments currently study—recoiling against a quark, gluon, photon, or another boson at high transverse momentum—the shifts are below $0.02\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ at parton level and below about $0.2\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ after 10% smearing, negligible next to the roughly 1% jet-energy-scale systematics. The large effects reappear at low transverse momentum: $Z\to bb$ with a third $b$ jet, $V+\gamma$ near $50\;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, and semileptonic $WW$, where the hadronic $W$ peak is predicted to move by two or more $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ after detector resolution. If the paper is right, current boosted-boson calibrations are unaffected, while lower-momentum analyses could be seeing a mass shift that has been ignored.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the t-channel colour-singlet QCD amplitude with the same quark flavours in the initial and final states as the electroweak s-channel resonance; only such identical-flavour amplitudes interfere. The s-channel gluon diagram is a colour octet and does not interfere, and gluon-splitting backgrounds are also colour octets, so the interfering background is a small flavour-conserving piece of the QCD sample. The paper extracts it by subtracting separately generated electroweak and QCD samples from the total, and models the mass spectrum with a relativistic Breit-Wigner added to a constant complex amplitude, using a signal-strength parameter $\eta_{\mathrm{scale}}$ and a fitted Gaussian peak shift as observables. Its key quantitative observation is that Gaussian detector smearing multiplies the peak shift by about an order of magnitude: the broad t-channel amplitude changes the apparent baseline under the narrow resonance. The signal-to-background ratio and the kinematic cuts (minimum transverse momentum and diquark rapidity gap) then determine where the interference is observable.

What would settle it

Compute the same shifts at next-to-leading order including colour-singlet $q\bar q$ pairs from gluon splitting; if the $Z$ peak shift at $p_T=200$–$400\;\mathrm{GeV}/c$ exceeds about $0.02\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ at parton level, the claim that boosted $Z$ bosons are unaffected fails. Alternatively, measure the $W\to du$ mass peak in semileptonic $WW$ events from existing LHC data across the diquark rapidity-gap and $p_T$ plane; a two-or-more $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ variation would confirm the mechanism, while a flat peak would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that electroweak-QCD interference is not a single correction but a kinematically controlled one. For inclusive $q\bar q\to V$ production at rest, the parton-level peak shift is downward, from $-0.07$ to $-0.41\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ depending on the quark flavour, and a 10% Gaussian detector smearing increases this to several $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ because the broad t-channel QCD amplitude tilts the baseline under the narrow resonance. In the boosted configurations relevant to LHC measurements—$V$ recoiling against a quark or gluon above $400\;\mathrm{GeV}/c$, or $V+\gamma$ at $200\;\mathrm{GeV}/c$—the signal-to-background ratio is high and the shifts are below $0.02\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ at parton level, and at most about $0.2\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ after smearing. The paper finds the promising observable cases where the transverse-momentum threshold is low: $bg\to bbb$ gives parton-level shifts of $-0.17$ to $+0.5\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ depending on the rapidity gap, and $WW\to \mu\nu du$ has a $W\to du$ peak that moves by two or more $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ after detector effects, varying across the diquark rapidity-gap and transverse-momentum plane. Because $b$-quark tagging suppresses the flavour-conserving t-channel QCD amplitude, $Z\to bb$ is systematically safer than $Z\to uu$.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume leading-order colour structure: only t-channel colour-singlet quark-antiquark exchanges interfere, and next-to-leading-order gluon splitting does not create a significant colour-singlet $q\bar q$ background; the paper itself notes that if NLO colour-singlet production is substantial, the $Z$-boson shifts would be reopened, while the $W$ results are safer because no analogous QCD process produces $ud$ pairs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The boosted hadronic $W$ and $Z$ peaks used in current resonance searches and jet calibrations at the LHC are not shifted by this interference at an observable level.
  • If analyses or triggers reach down to about $50\;\mathrm{GeV}/c$ transverse momentum, $V+\gamma$ and $bbb$ final states should show parton-level peak shifts of roughly $0.05$–$0.5\;\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$, growing after smearing.
  • Semileptonic $WW$ is the most accessible test: the hadronic $W$ peak is predicted to move by two or more $\mathrm{GeV}/c^2$ after detector resolution, varying across the kinematic plane, and the events are already in recorded LHC data.
  • Using $b$-tagging to select $Z\to bb$ suppresses the t-channel interfering background, making the $Z\to bb$ mass scale more robust than the $Z\to uu$ one.
  • Any use of inclusive hadronic $W$/$Z$ resonances as mass-scale standard candles must quote the kinematic selection, since the shift depends strongly on it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence the authors do not spell out: the same signal-to-background scaling can be used to screen future analyses—any channel with low signal-to-background and a flavour-conserving t-channel QCD contribution is a candidate for a multi-GeV peak shift after smearing.
  • The predicted variation of the $WW$ shift across the rapidity-gap/$p_T$ plane means a differential measurement, rather than a single inclusive 'W mass shift', is the sharpest way to test the mechanism with existing $l\nu qq$ events.
  • Because the paper flags NLO colour-singlet production as the main caveat for the $Z$, the natural next calculation is an NLO version of the low-$p_T$ $Z\to bb$ and $Z+\gamma$ channels; the $W$ results should be insensitive to this.
  • The same Breit-Wigner-plus-constant-interfering-amplitude template could be transferred to other narrow $q\bar q$ resonances, such as a $Z'$ or heavy Higgs, where lower signal-to-background would make the effect larger.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the interference between electroweak and QCD amplitudes in hadronic decays of W and Z bosons using leading-order Sherpa simulations. The authors define three samples (total, QCD, electroweak) and extract the interference term by subtraction, then quantify how it shifts the reconstructed invariant-mass peak of the quark-antiquark pair. They study inclusive V production, boosted V with quark or gluon recoil, V+photon, and vector-boson pair production, using parton-level selections and, in selected cases, parton shower plus Delphes detector simulation. The main results are that inclusive W/Z peaks shift by up to about 0.4 GeV/c2 at parton level and by several GeV/c2 after 10% Gaussian smearing, while for boosted bosons at the pT thresholds used by current LHC measurements the shifts are below about 0.02 GeV/c2 at parton level and below about 0.2 GeV/c2 after smearing. The largest proposed observable effects occur in low-pT Z+gamma, bbb, and semileptonic WW final states. The paper concludes that boosted hadronic vector bosons remain usable as standard candles, with a caveat in Section 7 that NLO colour-singlet qqbar contributions could reopen the question for the Z boson.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful, previously missing check of interference effects in boosted hadronic V decays at LHC energies. Its strengths are that the calculations are internally consistent, the size of the shifts tracks the signal-to-background ratio as expected, the parton-shower and Delphes checks reproduce the qualitative pattern seen with simple smearing, and the Sherpa configuration is documented in the appendix. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable predictions for WW->l nu qq and for trigger-level analyses. The significance is tempered by the leading-order nature of the calculation: the Z-boson predictions, including the low-pT channels highlighted in the abstract, rest on the assumption that NLO colour-singlet qqbar pairs are subdominant, and this is left unquantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7] The statement that "NLO effects might give rise to colour-singlet qq pairs with a significant cross-section, which would reopen the question for the Z boson" is a load-bearing qualification rather than a side remark. The central claims about boosted Z bosons (Section 4.2), Z+gamma (Section 5), and the low-pT Z modes highlighted in the abstract all depend on the absence of a significant colour-singlet qqbar contribution at NLO. As the manuscript stands, the Z-specific numerical results are conditional on an unquantified assumption. Please provide a quantitative estimate of this NLO contribution for at least one representative channel (for example a colour-decomposed NLO calculation for Z->uu or Z->bb), or explicitly rephrase the abstract and conclusions so that the Z results are presented as leading-order results that may be revised by NLO colour-singlet effects. The W conclusions, which the paper itself notes are more robust, can remain as stated.
  2. [Section 6] The prediction that the W->du peak in WW->mu nu qq will move "by two or more GeV/c2 across the kinematic plane" after detector resolution is an extrapolation from parton-level mean-mass shifts of roughly 0.1-0.25 GeV/c2 multiplied by the order-of-magnitude resolution enhancement observed for inclusive Z production. No smeared or detector-simulated WW mass spectra are shown. Given the acceptance-related reduction seen for the Delphes case in Section 3.1.1, the factor of ten may not be universal. The paper should either simulate the smeared WW distribution or clearly label this number as an illustrative extrapolation rather than a computed result.
  3. [Section 5] The statement that the interfering fraction of the QCD background in qq->Z->uu gamma is "only 0.7+/-0.1%" is obtained using the fit described in Section 3, which the authors themselves characterize as not quantitatively reliable because it neglects the t-channel electroweak contribution. This fraction is then used to interpret the pT dependence of the Z+gamma shifts in Table 5. The qualitative conclusions may survive, but the quantitative fraction should be supported by a direct decomposition of the QCD sample or by a fit that includes the t-channel electroweak term, so that the reader can see the 0.7% number is not an artifact of the incomplete model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The caption refers to the "qq->W peak", but the table reports Z-boson results; please correct the caption.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract contains ungrammatical phrases, including "hadronic vector bosons decays" and "this may not true"; please copyedit.
  3. [Section 7] The quoted intrinsic Z->uu shift of -0.409+/-0.005 GeV/c2 differs slightly from the value -0.405+/-0.009 GeV/c2 in Table 1; please make the numbers consistent or explain the difference.
  4. [Section 3.1] The "nine parameters" in Eq. (2) are not explicitly enumerated; please list kappa, m0, Gamma, b, c, and the polynomial coefficients of d(m) so that the parameter count is transparent.
  5. [Figure 13] The labels in the left panel (for example "dW+W u") are difficult to parse; consider using mathematical notation or a legend with clearer separators.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interference predictions are read from independent Sherpa LO samples, not derived from the fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions—mass shifts and eta_scale values for inclusive, boosted, V+gamma, and VV hadronic vector-boson peaks—are obtained by generating three independent Sherpa LO samples (total, QCD-only, and electroweak-only) and subtracting to isolate the interference term (Section 2). The peak shifts and eta_scale values are then read directly from the resulting mass distributions (Sections 3-6), so they are not by construction equal to any input parameter. The nine-parameter fit in Section 3 is explicitly presented as an interpretive cross-check rather than as the source of the predictions: the paper states 'The fit is informative, but due to the missing electroweak t-channel, it is not quantitatively reliable and simpler methods are generally used for the rest of this paper.' The fitted b parameter is used only for one interpretive remark in Section 5, not as an input to the predicted shifts. No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and no load-bearing self-citation appears; references to earlier calculations by Baur-Glover and Pumplin are external benchmarks with which results are compared, not assumed. The Section 7 caveat that 'NLO effects might give rise to colour-singlet qq pairs with a significant cross-section' is an acknowledged limitation of the leading-order calculation and a correctness risk for the Z-boson results, but it is not a circularity: the paper does not define its predictions in terms of that caveat. The W-boson results are explicitly noted to be more robust because no analogous QCD process exists for ud production. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the predictions are not equivalent to the inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on leading-order matrix elements, the colour-singlet/octet interference rule, the three-sample subtraction, and the assumed detector smearing. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • 10% Gaussian smearing width = 10% sigma on mass
    Chosen to mimic ATLAS/CMS dijet mass resolution (8-16% and 7.5-10% ranges cited); the reported 'several GeV' shifts after smearing scale with this assumption and would differ at other resolutions.
  • Breit-Wigner plus background fit parameters = e.g., mZ=91.125+/-0.001 GeV/c2, GammaZ=2.687+/-0.003 GeV/c2, b=202+/-2 pb, c=2.2+/-0.2 pb
    Nine parameters fit simultaneously to qq->uu MC distributions in Section 3. The fit is explicitly called 'not quantitatively reliable' and is used for interpretation and for the V+gamma interfering-background fraction, not for the main peak-shift results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Leading-order matrix elements with Comix accurately capture the EW-QCD interference for these final states.
    All main tables are leading order; no NLO sample is generated because OpenLoops is not interfaced to Sherpa. Section 7 admits NLO could change the Z conclusions.
  • standard math Colour structure rule: s-channel gluon amplitude is a colour octet and does not interfere with the colour-singlet EW amplitude; only t-channel QCD can interfere.
    Used throughout Sections 3-6 to select interfering diagrams and to argue bb final states are suppressed by PDFs.
  • domain assumption The total minus QCD minus EW subtraction isolates the interference, with non-resonant electroweak processes negligible.
    Section 2 states there is no simple way to include all non-resonant electroweak processes; the three-sample subtraction assumes they are absent or negligible.
  • domain assumption NNPDF3.0 and MMHT2014 PDF sets at 13 TeV pp collisions are appropriate inputs.
    Used in all simulations; PDF uncertainty is checked for only one channel, qq->Z->uu, giving a 0.006 GeV/c2 shift uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak-QCD interference in hadronic vector bosons at LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMOQUL2D

@misc{pith2026190808330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak-QCD interference in hadronic vector bosons at LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMOQUL2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08330}
}
read the original abstract

The analysis of hadronic vector boson decays at LHC does not normally allow for interference with QCD production. These effects are studied here using the Sherpa package and can move by several GeV/c 2 the peak positions experiments would reconstruct. However, their impact depends strongly on the kinematics involved. The shifts expected in boosted W and Z bosons, which have been the subject of experimental study, are explored for the first time. The effects in the channels examined are all very small or negligible, but this may not true if lower transverse momenta are analysed, for example in the experimental trigger systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ranft, J

    G. Ranft, J. Ranft, Physics Letters B 87(1-2), 122 (1979). DOI 10.1016/0370-2693(79)90034-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(79) 90034-0

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90034-0 1979

  2. [2]

    U. Baur, E. Glover, Physics Letters B 232(4), 519 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Alitti, et al., Z

    J. Alitti, et al., Z. Phys. C 49(CERN-PPE-90-105), 17 (1990). DOI 10.1007/BF01570793. URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/210698

    doi:10.1007/bf01570793 1990

  4. [4]

    Pumplin, Phys

    J. Pumplin, Phys. Rev. D 45, 806 (1992). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.45.806. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.806

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.806 1992

  5. [5]

    Baur, Phys

    U. Baur, Phys. Rev. D75, 013005 (2007). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.013005. URL https://link.apr.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.75.013005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.013005 2007

  6. [6]

    Butterworth, A.R

    J.M. Butterworth, A.R. Davison, M. Rubin, G.P. Salam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 242001 (2008). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.242001 2008

  7. [7]

    The ATLAS collaboration, Aad, G. et al. Search for diboson resonances in hadronic final states in 139 fb −1 of pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08589

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    The CMS collaboration, Sirunyan, A. et al. A multi-dimensional search for new heavy resonances decaying to boosted WW, WZ, or ZZ boson pairs in the dijet final state at 13 TeV (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05977

    arXiv 2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    et al., Phys

    The CMS collaboration, Sirunyan, A. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 071802 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.071802. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.071802

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    The ATLAS collaboration, Search for boosted resonances decaying to two b-quarks and produced in association with a jet at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2018-052, CERN, Geneva (2018). URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2649081

    2018

  3. [11]

    The ATLAS collaboration, Aad, G. et al. Measurement of the jet mass in high transverse momentum Z(→bb)γ production at√s = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07093

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    et al., Eur

    The ATLAS collaboration, Aad, G. et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 79(arXiv:1906.11005. 10), 836. 54 p (2019). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7335-x. URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2680245. 54 pages in total, author list starting page 38, 20 figures, 3 tables. All figures including auxiliary...

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aaboud, et al., Phys

    M. Aaboud, et al., Phys. Lett. B786, 59 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.09.013. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1016/j.physletb. 2018.09.013

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    et al., Phys

    The CMS collaboration, Sirunyan, A. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121(12), 121801 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801. URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    The CMS collaboration, Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data. Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, CERN, Geneva (2017). URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2256875

    2017

  8. [16]

    The ATLAS collaboration, Measurement of large radius jet mass reconstruction performance at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector. Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2016-008, CERN, Geneva (2016). URL https://cds.cern.ch/record/2139642

    2016

  9. [17]

    et al., The European Physical Journal C 79(4), 290 (2019)

    The ATLAS collaboration, Aad, G. et al., The European Physical Journal C 79(4), 290 (2019). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6757-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6757-9

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    et al., The European Physical Journal C 78(11), 891 (2018)

    The CMS collaboration, Sirunyan, A. et al., The European Physical Journal C 78(11), 891 (2018). DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6332-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6332-9

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Gleisberg, et al., JHEP 02, 007 (2009)

    T. Gleisberg, et al., JHEP 02, 007 (2009). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007. URL http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/ www?eprint+0811.4622

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cacciari, S

    M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, N. Houdeau, M.L. Mangano, P. Nason, G. Ridolfi, JHEP 10, 137 (2012). DOI 10.1007/JHEP10(2012)137. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)137

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierh¨ ofer, S. Pozzorini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111601 (2012). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.111601. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.111601

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Sch¨ onherr, F

    M. Sch¨ onherr, F. Krauss, JHEP12, 018 (2008). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/018. URL https://link.apr.org/doi/10.1088/1126-6708/ 2008/12/018

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Ball, et al., JHEP 04, 040 (2015)

    R.D. Ball, et al., JHEP 04, 040 (2015). DOI 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040. URL https://link.apr.org/doi/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    Harland-Lang, A.D

    L.A. Harland-Lang, A.D. Martin, P. Motylinski, R.S. Thorne, The European Physical Journal C 75(5), 204 (2015). DOI 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-015-3397-6. URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3397-6

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    Gleisberg, S

    T. Gleisberg, S. H¨ oche, JHEP 12, 039 (2008). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039. URL https://link.apr.org/doi/10.1088/1126-6708/ 2008/12/039

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    de Favereau, C

    The DELPHES 3 collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, M. Selvaggi, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014(2), 57 (2014). DOI 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    R. Brun, F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389, 81 (1997). DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X

    1997 doi

  20. [28]

    Brooijmans, et al., in Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV Colliders New Physics Working Group Report, Section 19, p145 (2018)

    G. Brooijmans, et al., in Les Houches 2017: Physics at TeV Colliders New Physics Working Group Report, Section 19, p145 (2018). URL http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2017/conf/fermilab-conf-17-664-ppd.pdf

    2018

  21. [29]

    Martin, Phys

    S.P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 86, 073016 (2012). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.073016. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.86. 073016

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Aaboud, et al., Phys

    M. Aaboud, et al., Phys. Rev. D96(7), 072002 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.072002. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.96.072002

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    et al., JINST 12(02), P02014 (2017)

    The CMS collaboration, Khachatryan, V. et al., JINST 12(02), P02014 (2017). DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008). DOI 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1088/ 1126-6708/2008/04/063

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    Calc(PPerp(p[0]+p[1])>0)

    The ATLAS collaboration, Trigger Menu in 2016. Tech. Rep. ATL-DAQ-PUB-2017-001, CERN, Geneva (2017). URL https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2242069 14 Cathy Ding, Ben Fuller, Eleanor Jones, Aran Martin, William Murray A Example Run.dat An example ‘run.dat’, for µ+νdu production with ...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.