Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 76 references

A search for a new neutral gauge boson produced with b jets and decaying to muon pairs finds no signal; the resulting 95% confidence-level upper limits on cross section × branching fraction × acceptance × efficiency are 0.2–2 fb for masses

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:09 UTC pith:KFVC6LWJ

load-bearing objection A solid, well-documented null result that closes a real coverage gap; the b-tag-dependent transfer factor is the one assumption worth probing, but it doesn't undermine the conclusion. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.11853 v2 pith:KFVC6LWJ submitted 2025-11-14 hep-ex

Search for a new neutral gauge boson produced in association with one or two b jets and decaying into a pair of muons in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Z' bosondimuon resonanceb quark fusionbottom quark productionheavy neutral gauge bosonproton-proton collisions at 13 TeVupper limitsbottom-strange coupling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper searches for a hypothetical new heavy neutral boson (Z′) that is produced together with at least one jet originating from a bottom quark and decays into a pair of muons. It finds no significant excess above standard-model background and sets 95% confidence-level upper limits on the product of cross section, branching fraction to dimuons, acceptance, and efficiency, ranging from 0.2 to 2 fb, for Z′ masses between 125 and 350 GeV. These are the first such limits in the 125–200 GeV range and the strongest for bottom-quark-fusion production modes in the 200–350 GeV range, closing a gap in coverage for models where the Z′ couples preferentially to third-generation quarks. The background is predicted entirely from control samples in data, without relying on simulation for the dominant backgrounds.

Core claim

The paper claims that in a sample of 138 fb⁻¹ of proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV, the spectrum of dimuon masses from events with at least one b-tagged jet and one or two total jets is fully consistent with the predicted standard-model background. No narrow resonance is observed between 122 and 391 GeV in reconstructed mass, so upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on σ(pp→Z′+b/bj) × B(Z′→μμ) × acceptance × efficiency ranging from 0.2 to 2 fb for Z′ masses between 125 and 350 GeV. Because previous inclusive searches were insensitive to production through bottom-quark initial states, this is the first constraint in the 125–200 GeV mass region and the most stringent for b-quark fusion

What carries the argument

An ABCD background-estimation method that predicts the background in the b-tagged dimuon signal regions from three control regions: dielectron events with b jets, and dimuon and dielectron events without b jets. The electron-to-muon ratio in non-b-tagged regions, smoothed with log-normal fits, is transferred to the b-tagged dielectron sample to predict the b-tagged dimuon background via SRμμ_b = CR_ee_b · (CRμμ_j / CR_ee_j), and analogously for two jets. The search is then a bump hunt in the dimuon mass spectrum, with two-dimensional bottom-quark-fusion variables (pTmiss/m and HT−LT) suppressing backgrounds.

Load-bearing premise

The background prediction assumes that the ratio of muon-pair to electron-pair yields measured in events without b-tagged jets, after smoothing by a log-normal fit, also describes events with b-tagged jets across the entire 122–391 GeV spectrum; if the lepton-flavor ratio changes with b-tagging in a mass-dependent way, the predicted background would be biased.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the μμ/ee yield ratio in b-enriched versus b-depleted regions with higher statistics than available here, or a detection of the 230 GeV excess growing into a narrow resonance with additional data, would confirm or refute the quoted limits.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any model predicting a narrow Z′ with muonic couplings and production through bottom or bottom-strange initial states with σ×B above 0.2–2 fb in the 125–350 GeV range is excluded.
  • The 125–200 GeV window, previously unconstrained for this signature, is now covered; models that explain flavor anomalies with a light Z′ must evade these bounds.
  • The process-dependent acceptance×efficiency tables and model-independent signal-yield limits allow other theories with different b/s jet topologies to be reinterpreted without rerunning the search.
  • The limits complement inclusive dilepton searches, which mostly constrain production through light-quark fusion, leaving this third-generation production channel as a distinct probe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strongest local excursion, a 3.1σ excess at 230 GeV in the one-b-jet signal region, is reported as consistent with background after the look-elsewhere effect (global 0.5σ); a reader might watch this mass point in future datasets, but the paper does not claim a signal.
  • Mapping the published limits onto concrete U(1)_X models with family-dependent charges is a natural next step; the paper provides the acceptance tables but does not perform that translation.
  • The assumption that the electron-muon ratio measured in non-b-tagged events carries over to b-tagged events could be tested directly by the experiment using a looser b-tag requirement, which would give a higher-statistics closure check than the current simulation-based validation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The CMS Collaboration presents a search for a narrow Z′ boson produced in association with at least one b-tagged jet and decaying to a μ+μ− pair, using 138 fb−1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data. The analysis defines one- and two-jet signal regions with at least one b-tagged jet and estimates the dimuon background with an ABCD method: dielectron b-tagged control regions provide the b-jet-enriched shape and normalization, while the dimuon/dielectron ratio measured in non-b-tagged control regions is used as a transfer factor (Eq. 1). All control-region shapes are parametrized with a three-parameter log-normal function (Eq. 2). No significant signal is observed; the largest local deviation is 3.1σ at 230 GeV in the 1-jet signal region, with a global significance of 0.5σ. Observed 95% CL upper limits on σ×B×A×ε are set between 0.2 and 2 fb for Z′ masses from 125 to 350 GeV. Process-dependent acceptance-times-efficiency tables and model-independent signal-yield limits are provided.

Significance. If correct, these are the first direct constraints on bottom-quark-fusion Z′ production decaying to muons in the 125–200 GeV mass range, and the most stringent in the 200–350 GeV range for this production mode, complementing inclusive dilepton resonance searches. The analysis is well targeted at third-generation-motivated Z′ models. The paper is notable for its fully data-driven background estimate, MC closure tests of the ABCD method (Fig. 4), signal-injection tests into the dielectron control regions, per-year fits, and an unusually transparent treatment of the background-fit correlations, including the 2–17% fit-envelope uncertainty. The public HEPData record for the signal UFO model is a useful reproducibility element. The main weakness is that the central μμ/ee transfer-factor assumption is not separately validated in data for b-tagged events; this is the load-bearing point that needs additional work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (1)] The signal-region prediction SRμμ_b = CRee_b × CRμμ_j/CRee_j assumes that the dimuon/dielectron yield ratio measured in non-b-tagged jet regions also holds in the b-tagged signal regions at every reconstructed mass. The b-tagged regions are significantly enriched in ttbar and single-top events (Section 5 states that tt dominates the 2-jet regions at ∼75%), so e/μ trigger, identification, isolation efficiencies and final-state kinematics entering the ratio can in principle differ from the DY-dominated light-jet regions. The only validation offered is the MC closure test in Fig. 4 and the quoted χ2 values; the 2–17% fit-envelope uncertainty covers Poisson fluctuations of the CRee_b fit, not a possible b-tag-dependent transfer-ratio bias. I request a direct data cross-check, e.g., comparing CRμμ_b/CRee_b with CRμμ_j/CRee_j in a Z-peak control sample or a dedicated signal-free validation reg
  2. [Section 5 and Section 6, Eq. (2)] The log-normal function is assumed to describe the 122–391 GeV dilepton mass shape in every control region, and the fit-envelope systematic is constructed by refitting the same functional form after Poisson fluctuations of individual bins. This procedure does not cover the possibility that the log-normal form itself is biased, e.g., if the true background shape has a different high-mass tail. The MC closure in Fig. 4 is reassuring, but it is not a substitute for a functional-form variation or a data-driven bias test in a signal-free region. Given that the limits reach 0.2–2 fb, a few-percent shape bias in the transfer factor or in CRee_b can shift the limits non-negligibly. I recommend adding an alternative-function closure test or an explicit assessment of the log-normal choice as a systematic uncertainty.
  3. [Section 7, last paragraph] The electron-contamination check is a useful robustness test, but it is performed only for equal dimuon/dielectron signal contributions and only quotes the limit degradation at 125 GeV (10%), while stating that 200 and 350 GeV are unchanged. The benchmark model assumes no Z′→ee decays, yet the model-independent interpretation uses dielectron control regions; if a signal model has nonzero electron coupling, the background estimate is modified. I suggest presenting the limit degradation as a function of mass (or at least at all quoted mass points) so that the model-independent claim is more fully quantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] Typo: 'sufficently' should be 'sufficiently'.
  2. [Section 5, page 10] The reported χ2 values (83.0, 67.1, 124.0, etc.) are quoted as 'over 84 bins' without degrees of freedom or reduced χ2. Please report χ2/ndf or state the number of fitted parameters explicitly.
  3. [Section 6, Table 4] The text states the PDF uncertainty in the acceptance is '<0.1%', while Table 4 lists '<0.02%' for SRμμ_b and '<0.2%' for SRμμ_b+j/b. These numbers should be harmonized.
  4. [Figures 4–7] The ratio panels show the MC/ABCD ratio as a dashed line, but the MC background uncertainties are not shown for visual clarity. Adding uncertainty bands on the ratio would make the closure assessment more quantitative.
  5. [Section 3] Generator widths are quoted only for mZ′ = 125, 250, and 300 GeV. It would be clearer to state that all widths are narrow compared to the detector resolution, or to list all generated widths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the background estimate is a disclosed data-driven ABCD relation, not a fitted target prediction, and the limit-setting uses independent SR data and MC signal acceptance.

full rationale

The central result — 95% CL upper limits — is derived by comparing SR data to an ABCD background prediction built from three control regions (Eq. 1): SR_mumu_b = CR_ee_b x CR_mumu_j / CR_ee_j. This is a standard data-driven estimate; the quantities in Eq. 1 are control-region yields, not the SR signal event count, so the prediction is not obtained by fitting the target observable. Signal acceptance and efficiency are obtained from MC (Section 3, Tables 5-11), not from the same data used to define the background. The method's assumption that the muon/electron transfer ratio measured in non-b-tagged regions holds in b-tagged regions is an empirical modeling assumption, tested in MC closure (Fig. 4) and quoted with chi2 values and a 2-17% fit-envelope systematic uncertainty. The log-normal fit form (Eq. 2) is an explicitly stated parameterization, not a hidden circular input. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [32] for the high-mass companion search, Ref. [11] for synchronized lepton selection) are contextual and not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The potential b-tag dependence of the transfer factor is a correctness/validation risk, not circularity, because it concerns whether the control-region ratio extrapolates correctly, not whether the prediction is defined in terms of the SR. No step in the paper's derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by the background-estimation machinery: a log-normal fit form, ABCD product-rule closure, and an MC-based acceptance chain. These are standard and disclosed for an LHC null-result search; the important point is that no entity is invented and the only hand-chosen numbers are the BQF selection boundaries and the background fit parameters, both of which carry explicit systematic uncertainties in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Log-normal background fit parameters (σ, μ, n) per CR, year, and jet multiplicity = not quoted in paper
    Eq. (2) fits the mass spectra in all control regions used in Eq. (1); the SR background prediction and hence the limits inherit these fitted values directly.
  • BQF selection threshold coefficients = p_T^miss/m_ℓℓ: 223·(m/GeV)^−0.23 (1 jet), 67·(m/GeV)^−0.04 (2 jet); H_T−L_T: −0.43·m+47 GeV, −0.56·m+124 GeV
    Table 3: two-dimensional selection boundaries chosen to maximize expected significance on simulated signal and background; functional forms (power law, linear) are ad hoc choices.
  • Signal-model scan inputs (δbs coupling values, generator widths) = δbs = 0.04, 0.5, 1.0; generator width 0.6–0.72 GeV
    Signal MC inputs from Sec. 3 and Sec. 7, chosen by hand as benchmark points, not fitted to data. Listed because the per-category limits depend on the assumed mix of production diagrams set by δbs.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Background in the SR equals the ABCD product rule with lepton-flavor and b-tag selections uncorrelated: SRμμ_b = CRee_b × CRμμ_j / CRee_j
    Sec. 5, Eq. (1). Load-bearing: if the μμ/ee ratio differs between b-tagged and non-b-tagged events, the background prediction is biased. Validated by MC closure (Fig. 4) and quoted χ² values, not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-parameter log-normal function (Eq. 2) describes the 122–391 GeV dilepton mass shape in every control region
    Sec. 5. Functional form chosen for fit stability; the 2018 SRμμ_b χ²=124/84 indicates residual tension in at least one region.
  • domain assumption GEANT4 detector simulation and data-to-simulation scale factors (jet energy scale/resolution, b-tagging, pileup, lepton efficiencies) accurately model the detector response
    Sections 2–3, 6. All signal acceptances Aε (Tables 5–11) and hence the quoted limits depend on this; standard CMS performance references cited.
  • domain assumption The benchmark signal model: narrow Z' with exclusive b-quark and FCNC b–s couplings decaying only to μ+μ− and νμν̄μ (from Ref. [16])
    Sections 1 and 3. Defines the interpretation; the analysis claims model-independence only via per-process acceptance tables, and the μ-only decay assumption is tested for electron contamination in Sec. 7.
  • standard math NNPDF3.1 parton densities in the 5-flavor scheme for signal generation
    Sec. 3; standard toolchain (MADGRAPH5 aMC@NLO + PYTHIA); PDF uncertainty in acceptance quoted below 0.1%.
  • domain assumption Pileup reweighting matches simulation to data
    Sec. 3; standard CMS practice; varied ±4.6% as a systematic.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 44012 in / 18639 out tokens · 161728 ms · 2026-08-03T22:09:06.459977+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search for a new neutral gauge boson, Z', produced in association with one or two jets, including at least one b jet, and decaying into a pair of muons is presented. The analysis uses proton-proton collision data collected with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. No significant deviation from background expectations is observed. Upper limits at 95% confidence level on the product of cross section, branching fraction to dimuons, acceptance, and efficiency, from 0.2 to 2 fb, are set for Z' boson masses between 125 and 350 GeV. Process-dependent products of acceptance and efficiency, and model-independent limits on the signal yield are provided. These are the only results to date in the 125$-$200 GeV mass range and the most stringent for b quark fusion production modes in the 200$-$350 GeV range, complementing inclusive Z' boson searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11853 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams of Z′ boson production with bottom-bottom or bottom-strange quark fusion with decays into a dimuon final state. Production at tree level (left), single associated initial-state radiation (ISR) jet production (middle), and two associated ISR jet production (right) are shown. In recent years, potential effects beyond the SM have been examined through precision mea￾surements of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of the search-specific variables from simulated backgrounds and signals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A visualization of the ABCD SRs and CRs. For example, SR b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the predictions of the SR b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 1-jet CRs with data fits used for the SR b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 2-jet CRs with data fits used for the SR b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distributions of mℓℓ in the SRµµ b (left) and SRµµ b+j/b (right) SRs. Events are divided by the bin width. Simulated signal shapes for Z′ boson masses of 125, 200, and 350 GeV are shown. The ”Stat + syst” band shows the envelope of the fit variations with statistical uncertainties. The ratio of the nominal MC background values (dashed line) and data to the ABCD prediction is shown as a dashed line in the r… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Data (black) vs. the ABCD method background prediction (blue) for 2016 (left), 2017 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Data (black) vs. the ABCD method background prediction (blue) for 2016 (left), 2017 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The asymptotic 95% CL limits on the product of cross section( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 References 21 (2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  2. [2]

    Probing the minimal U(1)X model at future electron-positron colliders via fermion pair-production channels

    A. Das, P . S. B. Dev, Y. Hosotani, and S. Mandal, “Probing the minimal U(1)X model at future electron-positron colliders via fermion pair-production channels”,Phys. Rev. D 105(2022) 115030,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.115030,arXiv:2104.10902

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    LHC di-lepton searches forZ ′ bosons which explain measurements of b→sl +l− transitions

    B. Allanach, “LHC di-lepton searches forZ ′ bosons which explain measurements of b→sl +l− transitions”,Phys. Lett. B858(2024) 139055, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139055,arXiv:2404.14748

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    An alternative to compactification

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Experimental probes of localized gravity: On and off the wall

    H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, and T. G. Rizzo, “Experimental probes of localized gravity: On and off the wall”,Phys. Rev. D63(2001) 075004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.075004,arXiv:hep-ph/0006041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Implications ofE6 Grand Unification

    P . K. Mohapatra, R. N. Mohapatra, and P . B. Pal, “Implications ofE6 Grand Unification”, Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 2010,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.2010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.33.2010 1986

  8. [8]

    Extra gauge bosons in E 6

    D. London and J. L. Rosner, “Extra gauge bosons in E 6”,Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 1530, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1530

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.34.1530 1986

  9. [9]

    Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 ofpp collision data collected at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 ofpp collision data collected at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B796(2019) 68,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.07.016,arXiv:1903.06248

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Search for new non-resonant phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new non-resonant phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP11(2020) 005, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2020)005,arXiv:2006.12946. [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at √s= 13 TeV ”,JHEP07(2021) 208, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)208,arXiv:2103.02708

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Search for additional heavy neutral higgs and gauge bosons in the ditau final state produced in 36 fb−1 ofppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for additional heavy neutral higgs and gauge bosons in the ditau final state produced in 36 fb−1 ofppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP01(2018) 055,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)055, arXiv:1709.07242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Search for heavy neutral resonances decaying to tau lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy neutral resonances decaying to tau lepton pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 112004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.112004,arXiv:2412.04357

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Search for new resonances in mass distributions of jet pairs using 139 fb−1 ofppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new resonances in mass distributions of jet pairs using 139 fb−1 ofppcollisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP03(2020) 145, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)145,arXiv:1910.08447. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Search for narrow resonances in theb-tagged dijet mass spectrum in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for narrow resonances in theb-tagged dijet mass spectrum in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 012009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.012009,arXiv:2205.01835

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Bottom-quark fusion processes at the LHC for probing Z’ models andB-meson decay anomalies

    M. Abdullah et al., “Bottom-quark fusion processes at the LHC for probing Z’ models andB-meson decay anomalies”,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 075035, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.075035,arXiv:1707.07016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Finding Z’ bosons coupled preferentially to the third family at CERN LEP and the Fermilab Tevatron

    K. R. Lynch, S. Mrenna, M. Narain, and E. H. Simmons, “Finding Z’ bosons coupled preferentially to the third family at CERN LEP and the Fermilab Tevatron”,Phys. Rev. D 63(2001) 035006,doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.035006,arXiv:hep-ph/0007286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  18. [18]

    A heavy top quark and the vertex in non-commuting extended technicolor

    R. S. Chivukula, E. H. Simmons, and J. Terning, “A heavy top quark and the vertex in non-commuting extended technicolor”,Phys. Lett. B331(1994) 383, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91068-5,arXiv:hep-ph/9404209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  19. [19]

    Topflavor: a separate SU(2) for the third family

    D. J. Muller and S. Nandi, “Topflavor: a separate SU(2) for the third family”,Phys. Lett. B 383(1996) 345,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00745-9, arXiv:arXiv:hep-ph/9602390

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  20. [20]

    Evidence for an excess of ¯B→D (∗) τ− ¯ντ decays

    BaBar Collaboration, “Evidence for an excess of ¯B→D (∗) τ− ¯ντ decays”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(2012) 101802,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802,arXiv:1205.5442

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    Measurement of an excess of ¯B→D (∗) τ− ¯ντ decays and implications for charged Higgs bosons

    BaBar Collaboration, “Measurement of an excess of ¯B→D (∗) τ− ¯ντ decays and implications for charged Higgs bosons”,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 072012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.072012,arXiv:1303.0571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B( ¯B0 →D ∗+τ− ¯ντ)/B( ¯B0 →D ∗+µ− ¯νµ)

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B( ¯B0 →D ∗+τ− ¯ντ)/B( ¯B0 →D ∗+µ− ¯νµ)”,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 111803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.111803,arXiv:1506.08614. [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.159901]

    arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B→D (∗) τ− ¯ντ relative to ¯B→D (∗)ℓ− ¯νℓ decays with hadronic tagging at Belle

    Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B→D (∗) τ− ¯ντ relative to ¯B→D (∗)ℓ− ¯νℓ decays with hadronic tagging at Belle”,Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 072014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072014,arXiv:1507.03233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B0 →D ∗+τ− ¯ντ relative to ¯B0 →D ∗+ℓ− ¯νℓ decays with a semileptonic tagging method

    Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of the branching ratio of ¯B0 →D ∗+τ− ¯ντ relative to ¯B0 →D ∗+ℓ− ¯νℓ decays with a semileptonic tagging method”,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 072007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.072007,arXiv:1607.07923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Measurement of theτlepton polarization andR(D ∗)in the decay ¯B→D ∗τ− ¯ντ

    Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of theτlepton polarization andR(D ∗)in the decay ¯B→D ∗τ− ¯ντ”,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 211801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211801,arXiv:1612.00529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Measurement of theτlepton polarization andR(D ∗)in the decay ¯B→D ∗τ− ¯ντ with one-prong hadronicτdecays at Belle

    Belle Collaboration, “Measurement of theτlepton polarization andR(D ∗)in the decay ¯B→D ∗τ− ¯ντ with one-prong hadronicτdecays at Belle”,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 012004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.012004,arXiv:1709.00129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    Measurement of the ratio of theB 0 →D ∗−τ+ντ and B0 →D ∗−µ+νµ branching fractions using three-prongτ-lepton decays

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the ratio of theB 0 →D ∗−τ+ντ and B0 →D ∗−µ+νµ branching fractions using three-prongτ-lepton decays”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(2018) 171802,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.171802,arXiv:1708.08856

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Test of lepton flavor universality by the measurement of the B0 →D ∗−τ+ντ branching fraction using three-prongτdecays

    LHCb Collaboration, “Test of lepton flavor universality by the measurement of the B0 →D ∗−τ+ντ branching fraction using three-prongτdecays”,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072013,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.072013,arXiv:1711.02505. References 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Measurement of lepton universality parameters inB + →K +ℓ+ℓ− andB 0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of lepton universality parameters inB + →K +ℓ+ℓ− andB 0 →K ∗0ℓ+ℓ− decays”,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 032002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.032002,arXiv:2212.09153

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Test of lepton universality inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays

    LHCb Collaboration, “Test of lepton universality inb→sℓ +ℓ− decays”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(2023) 051803,doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.051803,arXiv:2212.09152

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Collider constraints onZ ′ models for neutral current B-anomalies

    B. C. Allanach, J. M. Butterworth, and T. Corbett, “Collider constraints onZ ′ models for neutral current B-anomalies”,JHEP08(2019) 106,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2019)106, arXiv:1904.10954

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Search for a high-mass dimuon resonance produced in association with b quark jets at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for a high-mass dimuon resonance produced in association with b quark jets at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP10(2023) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)043,arXiv:2307.08708

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    The physics of heavyZ ′ gauge bosons

    P . Langacker, “The physics of heavyZ ′ gauge bosons”,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1199, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1199,arXiv:0801.1345

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    Search for high-mass dilepton resonances in pp collisions at √s= 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for high-mass dilepton resonances in pp collisions at √s= 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 052005, doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.052005,arXiv:1405.4123

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Measurement of the production cross section for Z+b jets in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section for Z+b jets in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 092014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.092014,arXiv:2112.09659

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Measurements of the production cross-section for aZboson in association withb-jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of the production cross-section for aZboson in association withb-jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP07(2020) 044,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)044, arXiv:2003.11960

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/P11021, arXiv:2410.17038. CMS-TRG-19-001, CERN-EP-2024-259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    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. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    FastJet user manual

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, CERN, 2017

    2017

  50. [50]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2023-005, 2023

    2023

  54. [54]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots

    CMS Collaboration, “ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020

    2016

  56. [56]

    Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV”,JINST10(2015) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005,arXiv:1502.02701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    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. References 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x,arXiv:1512.00815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions”,JHEP01(2007) 013, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013,arXiv:hep-ph/0611129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy

    N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, “FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy”,Comput. Phys. Commun.180(2009) 1614,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.018,arXiv:0806.4194

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  64. [64]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.165428

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.165428 2025

  65. [65]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

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

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  67. [67]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  68. [68]

    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

  69. [69]

    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

  70. [70]

    Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2018) 161,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161,arXiv:1802.02613

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II

    PDF4LHC Working Group Collaboration, “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001, arXiv:1510.03865

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0,arXiv:arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  73. [73]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE”, 2024.arXiv:2404.06614. Submitted toComput. Softw. Big Sci. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    The RooFit toolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. P . Kirkby, “The RooFit toolkit for data modeling”, inComputing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2003), L. Lyons and M. Karagoz, eds. 2003. arXiv:physics/0306116.doi:10.48550/arXiv.physics/0306116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.physics/0306116 2003

  75. [75]

    The RooStats Project

    L. Moneta et al., “The RooStats Project”,PoSACAT2010(2010) 057, doi:10.22323/1.093.0057,arXiv:1009.1003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  76. [76]

    Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics

    E. Gross and O. Vitells, “Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 525,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8, arXiv:1005.1891. 27 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia V . Chekhovsky, A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010