Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Machine learning method for enforcing variable independence in background estimation with LHC data: ABCDisCoTEC

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 ABCDisCoTEC adds a differentiable closure term to the ABCDisCo loss, so neural-network training directly minimizes the ABCD background-estimation error, yielding decorrelated discriminants with improved sensitivity in a stealth…

desk verdict Useful extension of ABCDisCo that adds a differentiable closure loss and MDMM; the main idea works for the demonstrated case, but the surrogate's fidelity is under-validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08826 v1 pith:IJPAVLDA submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords ABCDmethodbackgroundestimationdistancecorrelationnonclosuredifferentiablelossneuralnetworkstealthsupersymmetryLHC
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

The paper introduces ABCDisCoTEC, a training scheme that makes the ABCD background-estimation method learnable end to end. The central move is to add a differentiable approximation of the nonclosure, the mismatch between the predicted and true background counts in the signal region, to the neural-network loss, so training optimizes the quantity the method actually needs to control. In a stealth supersymmetry search using proton-proton collision data, the two learned discriminants stay strongly signal-sensitive while the nonclosure is small across most of the ABCD plane, which reduces the systematic bias in the background estimate and improves the expected sensitivity to new physics. The paper also shows that the modified differential method of multipliers makes the multi-term training more stable and reaches the same solution in far fewer iterations than manual hyperparameter tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is the nonclosure loss term, $L_{\mathrm{nonclosure}} = \left(\frac{N_A N_D - N_B N_C}{N_A N_D + N_B N_C}\right)^2$, which measures how far the ABCD prediction $N_B N_C/N_D$ is from the observed count $N_A$. Because event counts are discrete, the paper replaces hard counting with a two-dimensional sigmoid, $\sigma(S_1,S_2,b_1,b_2)=1/[(1+e^{-a(S_1-b_1)})(1+e^{-a(S_2-b_2)})]$ with scale $a=100$ and boundaries chosen randomly per batch, so that gradients can flow through the ABCD geometry. The full loss combines binary cross-entropy for classification, distance correlation for independence, and this closure term; the modified differential method of multipliers then treats the decorrelation and closure losses as constraints with learnable multipliers, which stabilizes the training and gives the hyperparameters a physical meaning.

What would settle it

Train ABCDisCoTEC on a simulated sample with known signal and background, then measure the hard-boundary nonclosure on an independent test set across a fine grid of ABCD boundary choices and compare it with the smoothed nonclosure loss evaluated at the same boundaries; a weak or reversed correlation between the two would show that the smooth surrogate is not controlling the quantity it claims to control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that one can train a neural network to minimize the ABCD nonclosure directly, rather than hoping that minimizing distance correlation between two outputs is enough. The nonclosure loss is $L_{\mathrm{nonclosure}} = \left(\frac{N_A N_D - N_B N_C}{N_A N_D + N_B N_C}\right)^2$, and it becomes differentiable when hard event counts are replaced by a two-dimensional sigmoid weighting with scale $a=100$ and randomly chosen boundaries per batch. Adding this term to the binary cross-entropy and distance-correlation losses yields two decorrelated discriminants with strong signal-background separation. In the paper's stealth supersymmetry case, the combined loss gives lower average nonclosure and higher normalized significance than either the distance-correlation or the closure term alone, and the resulting background estimates show good agreement between simulation and observed data. The accompanying use of MDMM turns the subordinate losses into constrained objectives with learnable multipliers, which stabilizes training and lets the analyst set physically meaningful targets such as a 10% nonclosure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that minimizing the smooth, sigmoid-weighted version of the nonclosure during training actually reduces the true discrete nonclosure at the boundaries used later; if that surrogate is unfaithful, the claimed background accuracy does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any analysis that relies on the ABCD method can in principle replace hand-selected independent variables with two learned discriminants trained to control nonclosure directly.
  • Smaller nonclosure translates into smaller systematic uncertainty in the background prediction, which directly improves discovery significance for searches where signal and background look similar.
  • MDMM converts loss weights into interpretable constraints, so an analyst can target a specific nonclosure value rather than scanning dimensionless hyperparameters.
  • The sub-ABCD validation procedure (VR I, VR II, VR III) provides a way to test the method in observed data even when no orthogonal validation region exists.
  • The same sigmoid-relaxation trick can be applied to extended ABCD formulations with additional control regions, as the paper notes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the smooth nonclosure is only a surrogate, the method's success for a new analysis should be checked by validating the correlation between the smoothed loss and the final hard-boundary nonclosure at the chosen boundaries.
  • Beyond the paper: random boundary sampling during training effectively averages the closure constraint over many possible ABCD partitions, which may make the learned discriminants more uniformly decorrelated and could be studied as an implicit regularizer.
  • Beyond the paper: the differentiable-counting trick is not specific to high-energy physics and could be reused wherever a ratio of region counts is optimized with gradient descent, for example in anomaly detection or survey analyses.
  • Beyond the paper: when the Pareto front is strongly nonconvex, the advantage of MDMM over grid search should be larger than in the convex stealth-supersymmetry example, so a synthetic benchmark with a known nonconvex front would quantify the benefit.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ABCDisCoTEC, an extension of the ABCDisCo method for background estimation in LHC searches. The key addition is a differentiable nonclosure loss term that replaces hard ABCD region boundaries with a two-dimensional sigmoid relaxation and samples boundaries randomly per training batch. The method is applied to a stealth supersymmetry search using CMS simulation and data, and is compared with variants using only the distance-correlation loss, only the closure loss, both, and with a lambda hyperparameter scan versus the modified differential method of multipliers (MDMM). The validation uses held-out test samples, simulation control regions, and data-driven validation regions constructed inside the ABCD plane.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it provides a practical way to train classifiers that satisfy the ABCD background-estimation relation across a broad range of boundaries, which is directly useful for many LHC searches. The paper includes strong validation elements: separate test samples, comparisons of loss variants, and a data-based validation-region study in Section 6. The MDMM comparison, if reproducible, is a useful contribution to multiobjective training in this context. The main limitation is that the central claim of 'directly minimizing the nonclosure' relies on a heuristic sigmoid surrogate whose fidelity is not demonstrated, and the reproducibility is limited by missing hyperparameter details. The algebraic issue in Eq. (6) also needs correction.

major comments (4)
  1. [2.2, Eq. (6)] The statement that Eq. (6) is the nonclosure loss 'in terms of the explicit nonclosure definition' is algebraically incorrect for r = N_B N_C/(N_A N_D) > 1. When r > 1, C/ = r-1, but Eq. (6) gives ((r-1)/(3-r))^2, which differs from Eq. (5) and is non-monotonic; for example at r=2, Eq. (6) equals 1 while Eq. (5) equals 1/9. The equality holds only for r <= 1. Since Eq. (5) is the loss actually used, this does not invalidate the training, but the equivalence claim in the text should be corrected or restricted.
  2. [2.2, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The central claim that minimizing the sigmoid-relaxed L_nonclosure directly minimizes the hard-boundary nonclosure of Eq. (2) is not established. The soft loss weights every event fractionally in all four regions and is minimized over randomly sampled boundaries, so it is a different functional from the hard-boundary nonclosure used in validation. The paper states a=100 was 'found to provide the best closure performance in general' but shows no fidelity check, no sensitivity scan over a, and no characterization of the boundary sampling distribution. I request a direct comparison: on a fixed test set, plot the soft loss against the hard nonclosure at several training checkpoints, and report the hard nonclosure for a = 10, 30, 100, 300. Without this, the phrase 'directly minimizes the nonclosure' overstates what is demonstrated.
  3. [4.1] It is not specified whether L_nonclosure and L_DisCo are evaluated on background events only, on signal events only, or on the full batch. This matters because the ABCD relation in Eq. (1) is a statement about background events and does not hold for signal, and Fig. 6 shows signal deliberately concentrated in region A. If the nonclosure loss were computed on the full batch including signal, it would penalize the desired signal topology. The training description should state unambiguously which event classes enter each loss term.
  4. [5.2, Eqs. (9)-(11)] The MDMM implementation is not described with enough detail to be reproducible or to support the claimed advantages. The paper does not quote the values or update schedules of the Lagrange multipliers alpha_i, the damping factors c_i, or the constraint targets epsilon_DisCo, nor the number of trainings used in Fig. 14. Since the MDMM comparison is a principal result highlighted in the abstract, these implementation details should be provided in a table or appendix.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.2] The statement 'a=100 was found to provide the best closure performance in general' should be supported by a sensitivity study; as written it is an unexplained empirical choice.
  2. [4.1] Final training hyperparameters, including the lambda values, learning-rate schedule, number of epochs, and early-stopping criterion, are not listed; add a table with the values used for the final models.
  3. [4.2] The sentence 'All other hyperparameters are set to optimal values for each training configuration' is vague; specify the performance criteria used to determine optimality.
  4. [6, Fig. 16] The quoted 3-15% systematic uncertainty from Ref. [8] is mentioned but no uncertainty band is shown in Fig. 16; indicate the band or refer the reader to the companion paper for the exact procedure.
  5. [4.2, Eq. (13)] The significance formula is a rough approximation; clarify that N_bkg is the background event count and that the nonclosure term is intended to be added in quadrature as a systematic uncertainty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the nonclosure loss is a training objective evaluated out-of-sample; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing companion reference.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The claimed contribution is a differentiable relaxation of the ABCD nonclosure metric: Eq. (5) defines the loss from the same four-region counts as Eq. (2), and Eq. (8) replaces hard Heaviside counting with a sigmoid weight. This is a surrogate objective, not a relabeled prediction. The reported nonclosure is measured on the held-out test sample (Fig. 12) and in data validation regions defined inside the B, C, and D control regions (Section 6, Fig. 16), so it is an out-of-sample check rather than the training loss itself. No fitted parameter is renamed as a physics prediction; the background estimate Npred_A = N_B N_C / N_D is evaluated on held-out counts. The only internal reference is the companion CMS paper [8], cited for the physics results (3-15% systematic uncertainty, improved limits) and not as evidence for the methodological claim; the method validation is self-contained in this paper. The skeptic's concern that the sigmoid surrogate (Eq. 7 with a=100 and random boundaries) may not faithfully track hard nonclosure is a robustness/correctness risk, not a circularity, because the paper does not assume the equivalence; it empirically demonstrates low hard nonclosure on data not used for training. Similarly, Eq. (6) is only algebraically equivalent to Eq. (5) when N_A N_D > N_B N_C, and the mapping from epsilon to 10% nonclosure in Section 2.3 is questionable; these are technical caveats, not input-output circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the sigmoid surrogate, the distance-correlation independence theorem, the ABCD relation, and the fidelity of the simulated samples. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are all training hyperparameters or loss coefficients; none are fitted to a target result in a way that would make the validation circular.

free parameters (7)
  • Sigmoid scale a = 100
    Controls the sharpness of the differentiable sigmoid approximation to event counting (Eq. 7). Chosen by hand after monitoring closure; the paper states a=100 gives the best closure performance in general.
  • Nonclosure loss weight lambda_nonclosure = Scanned 1-1000; optimal value not quoted for final models
    Relative weight of the nonclosure term in Eq. (3). Specific values are tuned per application and are not reported for the final lambda-trained model.
  • DisCo loss weight lambda_DisCo = Scanned 5000-50000 (DisCo-only) and 10-100 (combined); not quoted for final models
    Relative weight of the distance correlation term; must be balanced against BCE and closure.
  • MDMM constraint epsilon_nonclosure = 0.1 in the example
    Direct upper bound on the nonclosure loss in the constrained formulation (Eq. 9), physically interpreted as a 10% nonclosure systematic.
  • MDMM damping factor c_i = Not specified
    Quadratic penalty weights in Eq. (11) that ensure convergence to the constraint manifold; numerical values are not given.
  • Batch size = 4096
    Chosen as a compromise between nonclosure estimate quality and GPU memory.
  • Learning rate = 1e-4 to 1e-5
    Range found optimal for the Adam optimizer; values depend on the interplay of loss terms.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Theorem 3 of Ref. [5]: a distance correlation of zero implies statistical independence.
    Used in Section 2.1 to justify minimizing DisCo as a way to enforce independence of the two discriminants.
  • domain assumption The ABCD relation N_A_pred = N_B N_C / N_D holds when the two variables are independent for background events.
    Foundational to the nonclosure metric and the loss function; the entire method is designed to satisfy this relation.
  • domain assumption The simulated event samples (POWHEG, MadGraph, PYTHIA, Geant4) accurately represent the background and signal processes.
    Training, testing, and closure evaluations are performed on these simulations; any mismodeling would propagate into the claimed nonclosure and sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The constrained optimization reformulation (Eq. 9-11) with BCE as objective and DisCo/nonclosure as constraints is a valid way to navigate the Pareto front.
    MDMM is designed for such problems, but the paper assumes the problem structure permits this reformulation without loss of generality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine learning method for enforcing variable independence in background estimation with LHC data: ABCDisCoTEC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJPAVLDA

@misc{pith2026250608826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine learning method for enforcing variable independence in background estimation with LHC data: ABCDisCoTEC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJPAVLDA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08826}
}
read the original abstract

A novel solution is presented for the problem of estimating the backgrounds of a signal search using observed data while simultaneously maximizing the sensitivity of the search to the signal. The ``ABCD method'' provides a reliable framework for background estimation by partitioning events into one signal-enhanced region (A) and three background-enhanced control regions (B, C, and D) via two statistically independent variables. In practice, even slight correlations between the two variables can significantly undermine the method's performance. Thus, choosing appropriate variables by hand can present a formidable challenge, especially when background and signal differ only subtly. To address this issue, the ABCD with distance correlation (ABCDisCo) method was developed to construct two artificial variables from the output scores of a neural network trained to maximize signal-background discrimination while minimizing correlations using the distance correlation measure. However, relying solely on minimizing the distance correlation can yield undesirable characteristics in the resulting distributions, which may compromise the validity of the background prediction obtained using this method. The ABCDisCo training enhanced with closure (ABCDisCoTEC) method is introduced to solve this issue by directly minimizing the nonclosure, expressed as a dedicated differentiable loss term. This extended method is applied to a data set of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded by the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. Additionally, given the complexity of the minimization problem with constraints on multiple loss terms, the modified differential method of multipliers is applied and shown to greatly improve the stability and robustness of the ABCDisCoTEC method, compared to grid search hyperparameter optimization procedures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of idealized signal (red) and background (grey) distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagrammatic layout of the ABCDisCoTEC NN model. Features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of the sigmoid function in Eq. (7) with choices for the scale parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic illustration of the training path of the NN in the space of the learned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The values of the individual loss components scaled by the corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The distributions of background (left) and signal (right) events in the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The ROC curves for S NN 1 (left) and S NN 2 (right) from the ABCDisCoTEC model using the stealth SUSY training set, for different values of the top squark mass in units of GeV. The performance is measured using an eight-fold cross-validation; the shaded regions represe…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of ROC curves from a single binary classifier DNN, each discriminant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the nonclosure and normalized significance from the three loss func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of the “four corners” failure mode: background (left) and signal (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example of the “hard edge” failure mode for background events (left) and signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The nonclosure (left) and raw statistical significance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Scans of the Pareto front in the Lnonclosure vs. LBCE plane with the λ (left) and MDMM (right) methods. All trainings are conducted with PYTORCH. Each line shows the training of a model with different values of the λ or ϵ parameters, respectively. This is examined in …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The significance and nonclosure values from scanning the ABCD boundaries, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Visual representations of the three VRs (VR I, VR II, and VR III). The solid blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The nonclosure in simulation and observed data when iteratively increasing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Search for High Mass Top Quark Production in p anti-p Collisions at S**(1/2) = 1.8 TeV

    D0 Collaboration, “Search for high mass top quark production inp pcollisions at√s=1.8 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995) 2422, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2422,arXiv:hep-ex/9411001

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Data analysis in high energy physics: a practical guide to statistical methods

    O. Behnke, K. Kr ¨oninger, G. Schott, and T. Sch¨orner-Sadenius, eds., “Data analysis in high energy physics: a practical guide to statistical methods”. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2013.doi:10.1002/9783527653416

    doi:10.1002/9783527653416 2013

  3. [3]

    Background estimation with the ABCD method featuring the TRooFit toolkit

    W. Buttinger, “Background estimation with the ABCD method featuring the TRooFit toolkit”, 2018.https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235806829

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Automating the ABCD method with machine learning

    G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, M. D. Schwartz, and D. Shih, “Automating the ABCD method with machine learning”,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 035021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.035021,arXiv:2007.14400

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances

    G. J. Sz ´ekely, M. L. Rizzo, and N. K. Bakirov, “Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances”,Ann. Stat.35(2007) 2769, doi:10.1214/009053607000000505,arXiv:0803.4101

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    LHC Machine

    L. Evans and P . Bryant, “LHC Machine”,JINST3(2008) S08001, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08001

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08001 2008

  8. [8]

    Search for top squarks in final states with many light-flavor jets and 0, 1, or 2 charged leptons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for top squarks in final states with many light-flavor jets and 0, 1, or 2 charged leptons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, 2025. Submitted to JHEP

    work page 2025

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Constrained differential optimization

    J. Platt and A. Barr, “Constrained differential optimization”, inNIPS’87: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987

    1987

  2. [10]

    Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents

    K. Pearson, “Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents”,Proceedings of the Royal Society of London58(1895) 240

  3. [11]

    Visualizing the Pareto frontier

    A. V . Lotov and K. Miettinen, “Visualizing the Pareto frontier”, p. 213. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88908-3_9

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    Stealth supersymmetry

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman, “Stealth supersymmetry”,JHEP11(2011) 012, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)012,arXiv:1105.5135. References 27

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A stealth supersymmetry sampler

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman, “A stealth supersymmetry sampler”,JHEP07 (2012) 196,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)196,arXiv:1201.4875

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Stealth supersymmetry simplified

    J. Fan et al., “Stealth supersymmetry simplified”,JHEP07(2016) 016, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)016,arXiv:1512.05781

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Search for top squarks in final states with two top quarks and several light-flavor jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for top squarks in final states with two top quarks and several light-flavor jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 032006,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.032006,arXiv:2102.06976

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chollet et al., “Keras”, 2015.https://keras.io

    F. Chollet et al., “Keras”, 2015.https://keras.io

    2015

  9. [17]

    TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning

    M. Abadi et al., “TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning”, inProceedings of the 12th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI’16, p. 265. USENIX Association, Savannah, GA, USA, 2016.arXiv:1605.08695

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    A. Paszke et al., “PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library”, inNIPS’19: 33rd International Conference on Neural Information, p. 721. Curran Associates Inc., 2019.arXiv:1912.01703

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    D. P . Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization”, 2014. arXiv:1412.6980

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method

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

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

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

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

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “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

  16. [24]

    Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders”,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2930, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021,arXiv:1112.5675

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    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

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Squark and gluino production cross sections in pp collisions at√s=13, 14, 33 and 100 TeV

    C. Borschensky et al., “Squark and gluino production cross sections in pp collisions at√s=13, 14, 33 and 100 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3174, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3174-y,arXiv:1407.5066

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    NNLL-fast: predictions for coloured supersymmetric particle production at the LHC with threshold and Coulomb resummation

    W. Beenakker et al., “NNLL-fast: predictions for coloured supersymmetric particle production at the LHC with threshold and Coulomb resummation”,JHEP12(2016) 133, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)133,arXiv:1607.07741. 28

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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

  24. [32]

    Improved extrapolation methods of data-driven background estimations in high energy physics

    S. Choi and H. Oh, “Improved extrapolation methods of data-driven background estimations in high energy physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 643, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09404-1,arXiv:1906.10831. 29 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrape...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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