Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 50 references

Measurement of WWZ and ZH production cross sections at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 and 13.6 TeV

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper measures WWZ and ZH production in four-lepton final states at 13 and 13.6 TeV, reporting the most precise WWZ measurement to date and the first evidence for triboson production at 13.6 TeV, with an inclusive signal strength of…

desk verdict A mature CMS precision measurement that delivers the first WWZ/ZH separation and first 13.6 TeV triboson evidence; the main soft spot is the lack of an explicit data/MC closure test of BDT score shapes, but that is a minor omission, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20483 v3 pith:R4ZPRX6Z submitted 2025-05-26 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords WWZproductiontribosonZHfour-leptonfinalstateboosteddecisiontreesignalstrengthstandardmodel
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 measures how often proton-proton collisions produce a W boson pair together with a Z boson, a rare process that tests the standard model's self-interactions of gauge bosons. It reports the most precise measurement of WWZ production to date and the first evidence for this triboson process at the new 13.6 TeV collision energy. For the first time, it separates the nonresonant WWZ process from ZH production, where a Higgs boson decays to two W bosons, in a single simultaneous fit. The measured inclusive signal strength is 1.03 +0.31/-0.28 times the standard-model prediction, with an observed significance of 4.5 standard deviations (5.0 expected).

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a boosted decision tree multiclassifier, trained on simulated events, that assigns each four-lepton event three scores (WWZ, ZH, background) normalized by a softmax function to sum to one. Events are binned in these scores to build signal regions, and a simultaneous maximum-likelihood fit extracts the two signal strengths together with background normalizations, with control regions constraining the dominant ZZ and ttZ/tWZ backgrounds.

What would settle it

Inspect the multiclassifier output scores in background-dominated control regions: if the data distributions of the three scores do not match the simulated prediction within uncertainties, the calibration of the scores as probabilities is invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combined WWZ and ZH production rate in the four-lepton final state is consistent with the standard model, with signal strength 1.03 +0.31/-0.28 and observed significance 4.5 standard deviations (5.0 expected). This constitutes the most precise measurement of WWZ production to date and the first evidence for triboson production at 13.6 TeV. The measurement also establishes the first simultaneous extraction of nonresonant WWZ and ZH (H to WW) contributions from the same data, using a multiclassifier that assigns each event a probability for each of the two signals and for background.

Load-bearing premise

The multiclassifier's three scores are treated as true probabilities of WWZ, ZH, and background for real events, which requires the simulated training samples to model the 27 kinematic input variables accurately; if the simulation is wrong, the separated signal strengths and the claimed WWZ-ZH distinction could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured inclusive signal strength of 1.03 +0.31/-0.28 makes this the most precise WWZ measurement to date.
  • The 3.8-sigma observed significance at 13.6 TeV provides the first evidence for triboson production at that energy.
  • The first simultaneous separation of nonresonant WWZ from ZH allows each process to be compared individually with the standard model; the two are consistent within their current uncertainties.
  • Because statistical uncertainties dominate (systematics add less than 5% to the total uncertainty), more data will directly shrink the measurement's uncertainty.
  • The separation of ZH from nonresonant WWZ is robust: fixing the ZH rate to its measured value changes the WWZ signal strength by less than 1%.
  • The inclusive signal strength across both energies is consistent with the standard-model prediction of 1.0 within the quoted uncertainties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the multiclassifier separation holds as data accumulate, WWZ alone can be used to constrain anomalous quartic gauge couplings without contamination from the Higgs-mediated ZH diagram.
  • The same multiclassifier approach could be applied to other triboson final states (e.g., WZZ or ZZZ) to separate resonant and nonresonant contributions.
  • A direct test of the BDT calibration would be to repeat the extraction using a cut-based signal region; agreement would confirm the scores' probability interpretation, while disagreement would flag simulation mismodeling.
  • The larger Run 3 signal strength (1.74 +0.71/-0.60) compared with Run 2 (0.75 +0.34/-0.29) is consistent with the standard model within uncertainties, but the two eras' central values differ by more than one standard deviation; a dedicated study of run-dependent acceptance or background modeling would clarify whether this is statistical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of WWZ and ZH production in the four-lepton final state using 138 fb^-1 at 13 TeV and 62 fb^-1 at 13.6 TeV. A BDT multiclassifier separates nonresonant WWZ, ZH (H->WW), and background, and a simultaneous binned likelihood fit is performed to signal regions binned in the three BDT scores along with dedicated control regions for ZZ and ttZ/tWZ. The inclusive WWZ+ZH signal strength is measured to be 1.03 +0.31/-0.28 with an observed (expected) significance of 4.5 (5.0) standard deviations. The WWZ and ZH processes are measured separately for the first time. The Run 3 data alone give an observed (expected) significance of 3.8 (2.5) standard deviations, which is presented as the first evidence for triboson production at 13.6 TeV. The results are consistent with SM predictions within uncertainties.

Significance. If correct, this is the most precise WWZ cross-section measurement to date and the first simultaneous separation of nonresonant WWZ from ZH production. The analysis is mature in its use of NLO MC, dedicated control regions, a full systematic treatment, and a well-documented statistical framework. The systematic uncertainties are much smaller than the statistical ones, and the result is consistent with the SM. The central claim, however, rests on the MC-modeled BDT score distributions for the dominant backgrounds, which are constrained only in normalization by the control regions; this point needs explicit validation before the significance claim can be fully accepted.

major comments (1)
  1. [Signal regions and control regions (page 4)] The ZZ and tXZ control regions are defined without binning in the BDT scores, so the fit constrains only the integrated normalizations of these backgrounds while their shapes across the signal-region BDT bins are taken entirely from MC simulation. The paper does not provide a data/MC closure test of the BDT output distributions in a background-enriched region, nor does it include an explicit shape systematic for the BDT templates. Since the observed (expected) combined significance is 4.5 (5.0) sigma and the Run 3 excess is 3.8 sigma against an expected 2.5 sigma, the result is sensitive to a possible bias in the background shape. The authors should add a BDT-score-binned data/MC validation in a control region, assign a shape uncertainty to the BDT templates, or demonstrate the robustness of the fitted signal strengths and significances under a reweighting of the BDT distributions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Multiclassifier description (page 4)] The statement that the softmax-transformed scores 'can be interpreted as probabilities' is imprecise; they are not calibrated posterior probabilities, though calibration is not required for the analysis. Suggest rewording to 'relative scores that sum to one'.
  2. [References] Reference [43] contains an internal inconsistency: 'ACAT 2017' with dates 'April 23-27, 2007' and location 'Amsterdam'. The workshop was ACAT 2007; please correct the year in the workshop name.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption would benefit from a brief definition of the 'WWZ-like' and 'ZH-like' bin labels directly in the caption, rather than only in the main text, to make the figure self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: signal strengths are fit to data against external SM cross-section benchmarks, with no fitted parameter fed back into the predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central result (inclusive signal strength 1.03 +0.31/-0.28) is extracted from a simultaneous extended maximum likelihood fit to signal-region bins and control regions. Signal strengths are explicitly defined as ratios of measured cross sections to SM predictions from independent generators (MADGRAPH5 aMC@NLO, POWHEG, and the LHC Higgs Working Group). The only floated normalization parameters are the ZZ and ttZ+tWZ backgrounds, which are constrained by dedicated control regions; all other background normalizations are taken from MC with systematic uncertainties. No fitted parameter is fed back into the SM prediction, and the SM benchmarks are external inputs rather than outputs of the fit. The BDT multiclassifier is a modeling assumption about MC-to-data generalization, which is a genuine systematic-correctness risk but not a circular reduction: the fitted yields remain data-derived and the SM predictions are independent. Citations to prior CMS work (e.g., [3] and [6]) are contextual or used only in a robustness check (fixing ZH to its measured value [6]) and are not load-bearing for the main extraction. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input, so the analysis is self-contained rather than circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external SM predictions and MC modeling, with two background normalizations fitted to data control regions. No new particles, forces, or ad hoc parameters are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • ZZ background normalization = not quoted (floated in fit)
    Allowed to float freely in the simultaneous likelihood fit; constrained by one dedicated ZZ control region per run period.
  • ttZ+tWZ background normalization = not quoted (floated in fit)
    Allowed to float freely in the fit; constrained by tXZ control regions split by SF/OF channel, run period, and b-tag multiplicity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SM cross-section predictions for WWZ (NLO, MADGRAPH) and ZH (NNLO, LHC Higgs WG) are accurate
    Signal strengths are defined relative to these predictions, and the paper excludes their uncertainties, so the significance depends on the accuracy of these inputs.
  • domain assumption MC generators model signal and background kinematics accurately enough for BDT training and background estimation
    The BDT is trained on MC and the signal/background yields are taken from MC; mismodeling would bias the fitted signal strengths.
  • standard math The extended maximum likelihood fit implemented in COMBINE yields unbiased estimates and uncertainties
    Assumed correctness of the statistical tool used for the profile likelihood scans.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of WWZ and ZH production cross sections at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 and 13.6 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R4ZPRX6Z

@misc{pith2026250520483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of WWZ and ZH production cross sections at $\sqrts$ = 13 and 13.6 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R4ZPRX6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20483}
}
abstract

A measurement is presented of the cross section in proton-proton collisions for the production of two W bosons and one Z boson. It is based on data recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC at center-of-mass energies $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 and 13.6 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 200 fb$^{-1}$. Events with four charged leptons (electrons or muons) in the final state are selected. Both nonresonant WWZ production and ZH production, with the Higgs boson decaying into two W bosons, are reported. For the first time, the two processes are measured separately in a simultaneous fit. Combining the two modes, signal strengths relative to the standard model (SM) predictions of 0.75 $^{+0.34}_{-0.29}$ and 1.74 $^{+0.71}_{-0.60}$ are measured for $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 and 13.6 TeV, respectively. The observed (expected) significance for the triboson signal is 3.8 (2.5) standard deviations for $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV, thus providing the first evidence for triboson production at this center-of-mass energy. Combining the two modes and the two center-of-mass energies, the inclusive signal strength relative to the SM prediction is measured to be 1.03 $^{+0.31}_{-0.28}$, with an observed (expected) significance of 4.5 (5.0) standard deviations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example Feynman diagrams for nonresonant WWZ (left) and ZH (with H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the numbers of observed to SM-predicted events for each of the bins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Likelihood scans for the combined Run 2 and Run 3 data sets. Left: One-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measured values of the WWZ, ZH, and inclusive signal strength parameters. Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  2. [2]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Observation of the production of three massive gauge bosons at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the production of three massive gauge bosons at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 151802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.151802,arXiv:2006.11191

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    ATLAS Collaboration, “The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”, JINST3(2008) S08003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08003 2008

  5. [5]

    Observation of VVZ production at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of VVZ production at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139527,arXiv:2412.15123

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery

    CMS Collaboration, “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 60,doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x, arXiv:2207.00043. [Author correction:doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery

    ATLAS Collaboration, “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 52, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w,arXiv:2207.00092. [Publisher correction: doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05581-5, author correction: doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06248-5]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,JHEP07 (2014) 079,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079,arXiv:1405.0301

    arXiv 2014

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016.doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002,arXiv:1610.07922

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888. References 9

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P10005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005,arXiv:1809.02816

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector”,JINST14(2019) P07004,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004,arXiv:1903.06078

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    FASTJETuser manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FASTJETuser manual”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2,arXiv:1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,JINST15(2020) P09018, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018,arXiv:2003.00503

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pileup per particle identification

    D. Bertolini, P . Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran, “Pileup per particle identification”,JHEP10 (2014) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)059,arXiv:1407.6013

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Merging meets matching inMC@NLO

    R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching inMC@NLO”,JHEP12(2012) 061, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061,arXiv:1209.6215

    2012 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions

    J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,Eur. Phys. J. C53(2008) 473, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5,arXiv:0706.2569

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms

    P . Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,JHEP11(2004) 040,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod”,JHEP11(2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070,arXiv:0709.2092

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: thePOWHEG BOX

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: thePOWHEG BOX”,JHEP06(2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043,arXiv:1002.2581. 10

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    W+W−, WZ and ZZ production in thePOWHEG BOX

    T. Melia, P . Nason, R. R¨ontsch, and G. Zanderighi, “W+W−, WZ and ZZ production in thePOWHEG BOX”,JHEP11(2011) 078,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)078, arXiv:1107.5051

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction

    S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi, and P . Nason, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,JHEP09(2007) 126, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126,arXiv:0707.3088

    2007 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders

    J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders”,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 113006,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.113006, arXiv:hep-ph/9905386

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Parton distributions for the LHC run II

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,JHEP04(2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040,arXiv:1410.8849

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction toPYTHIA8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3”, SciPost Phys. Codeb.8(2022)doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at √s=13.6 TeV

    A. Karlberg et al., “Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at √s=13.6 TeV”, LHC Higgs Working Group Public Note LHCHWG-2024-001, 2024.arXiv:2402.09955

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011,arXiv:1712.07158

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jet flavour classification using DeepJet

    E. Bols et al., “Jet flavour classification using DeepJet”,JINST15(2020) P12012, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012,arXiv:2008.10519

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb −1 of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb −1 of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2018-058, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Measuring masses of semi-invisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders

    C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers, “Measuring masses of semi-invisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders”,Phys. Lett. B463(1999) 99, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00945-4,arXiv:hep-ph/9906349

    1999 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A variable for measuring masses at hadron colliders when missing energy is expected;m T2: the truth behind the glamour

    A. Barr, C. Lester, and P . Stephens, “A variable for measuring masses at hadron colliders when missing energy is expected;m T2: the truth behind the glamour”,J. Phys. G29 (2003) 2343,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/29/10/304,arXiv:hep-ph/0304226. References 11

    2003 arXiv

  35. [43]

    TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT

    H. Voss, A. H ¨ocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, “TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT”, inProc. 11th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis T echniques in Physics Research (ACAT 2017): Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 23–27, 2007....

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:COMBINE

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:COMBINE”, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8(2024) 19,doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4, arXiv:2404.06614

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 800, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2,arXiv:2104.01927

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018

    2017

  39. [47]

    CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019

    2018

  40. [48]

    Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV in 2022 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV in 2022 at CMS”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-22-001, 2024

    2022

  41. [49]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Heinemeyer et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties”, CERN Report CERN-2013-004, 2013. doi:10.5170/CERN-2013-004,arXiv:1307.1347

    2013 arXiv

  42. [50]

    12 13 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.158280. 12 13 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria W. Adam , J.W. Andrejkovic, L. Benato ,...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.