Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper measures the production rate of a boosted Higgs boson decaying to bottom-quark pairs together with a hadronically decaying W or Z boson, finding a signal strength of 0.72 +0.75/-0.71 relative to the Standard Model and an observed

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 11:39 UTC pith:7PA2I76J

load-bearing objection First CMS measurement in boosted hadronic VH(bb) with full Run 2; a competent null result whose main weakness—unconstrained QCD transfer factor—is real but not load-bearing.

arxiv 2601.05362 v2 pith:7PA2I76J submitted 2026-01-08 hep-ex

Search for a boosted Higgs boson decaying to bottom quark pairs in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Higgs bosonH→bbVH productionboosted jetsjet substructureheavy-flavor taggingsignal strengthLHC
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.

This paper reports a search for Standard Model Higgs bosons with large transverse momentum decaying to bottom-quark pairs, produced in association with a hadronically decaying W or Z boson. Using 138 fb^-1 of proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV, the authors measure the V(qq)H(bb) signal strength relative to the Standard Model expectation to be μ = 0.72, with uncertainties of +0.75/-0.71, corresponding to an observed significance of 1.00σ (1.64σ expected). The result is consistent with the Standard Model within the quoted uncertainties. The simultaneously measured V(qq)Z(bb) process also agrees with the Standard Model and serves to validate the analysis strategy. Because the high-momentum VH process is more sensitive to new physics than the inclusive rate, this measurement is a step toward probing the Higgs sector at high energy scales.

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that the boosted fully hadronic VH production rate is compatible with the Standard Model. The best-fit signal strength is μVH = 0.72 +0.75/-0.71, and the background-only hypothesis is rejected with a significance of only 1.00 standard deviations (expected 1.64). The analysis also extracts the V(qq)Z(bb) signal strength, μVZ = 0.09 ± 0.63, again consistent with the Standard Model, which the authors use to validate the analysis strategy. The measurement is statistics-limited; the dominant systematic uncertainty comes from the data-driven transfer factor used to model the QCD multijet background.

What carries the argument

The measurement relies on large-radius (AK8) jets with transverse momentum above 450 GeV to capture the collimated decay products of the boosted Higgs and vector bosons. Jets are classified by the mass-decorated ParticleNet tagger, a graph neural network that outputs probabilities for a jet to come from bb, cc, qq, or QCD, from which the discriminants D(bb vs. cc,qq) and D(bb vs. QCD) are built. The QCD multijet background in the signal region is estimated from data in a tagger-fail region, multiplied by a transfer factor TF(mSD) = a(1 - log(mSD/GeV)) + b log(mSD/GeV) whose coefficients are fitted in the same maximum-likelihood fit as the signal. The fit uses the soft-drop jet mass (mSD) dis

Load-bearing premise

The QCD multijet background shape in the signal region is assumed to follow a first-order polynomial in log(mSD) relative to the fail region, with coefficients determined by the same fit that extracts the signal; if this functional form does not describe the true fail-to-pass ratio, the measured signal strength could shift.

What would settle it

A control measurement that would challenge the result: use a high-statistics QCD-enriched region with the same jet and tagger selection, and check whether the observed ratio of pass-to-fail mSD distributions is consistent with a single first-order polynomial in log(mSD) across the full range; if a clear curvature or a dependence on jet pT beyond the quoted uncertainties appears, the transfer-factor parameterisation would be falsified and the signal strength would need to be re-extracted with a more flexible form.

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

If this is right

  • If the measured signal strength is correct, the fully hadronic boosted VH channel is a viable way to study high-pT Higgs production; with a larger future dataset, the same analysis could achieve a precise measurement of the high-pT VH cross section.
  • The V(qq)Z(bb) validation, which agrees with the Standard Model, supports the reliability of the background-estimation procedure for hadronic boosted-boson analyses.
  • Because the relative contribution of VH production grows with Higgs pT, this measurement provides a direct handle on the high-energy behaviour of the Higgs coupling to vector bosons, where deviations could show up first.
  • The observed signal strength is below unity but well within uncertainties, so the result neither confirms nor excludes new physics; it narrows the allowed range of high-pT VH production rates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not state is to combine this fully hadronic measurement with the leptonic-V VH analyses; because the channels are statistically independent, a combined fit would roughly halve the uncertainty on the VH signal strength at high pT.
  • The data-driven transfer-factor method could be reused in other boosted heavy-flavour searches, such as high-pT HH → bbbb or vector-boson-fusion H → bb, where the QCD background is similarly estimated from a tagger fail region; its simple two-parameter form makes it easy to port.
  • A testable prediction implicit in the method is that the transfer factor's shape should be stable as a function of pT; the authors fix its functional form but could check by splitting the analysis into two pT bins and verifying that the fitted coefficients agree within uncertainties.

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a search for boosted standard-model Higgs bosons decaying to bottom-quark pairs and produced in association with a hadronically decaying W or Z boson, using 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by CMS in 2016-2018. Events are selected with two AK8 jets with pT > 450 GeV; a mass-decorated ParticleNet-based tagger is used to identify the H candidate and to suppress QCD background. The V-candidate jet mass defines three categories, and the H-candidate mass is fitted in D(bb vs. QCD) pass and fail regions. The dominant QCD multijet background is estimated from the fail region with a data-to-simulation transfer factor whose coefficients are fitted simultaneously with the signal. Additional control regions calibrate the jet mass scale/resolution and the p(QCD) tagger efficiency and constrain the top-quark background. The profile-likelihood fit yields mu_VH = 0.72^{+0.75}_{-0.71}, corresponding to an observed (expected) significance of 1.00 (1.64) standard deviations, and mu_VZ = 0.09 +/- 0.63 for the V(qq)Z(bb) validation process. The results are consistent with the standard-model expectation within the quoted uncertainties.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first CMS measurement of boosted hadronic V(qq)H(bb) production at high pT, complementing the ATLAS measurement and extending the CMS high-pT H->bb program. The analysis is methodologically solid: dedicated control regions, in-situ calibration of jet mass scale/resolution and tagger efficiency, a mass-decorated tagger, and a simultaneous profile-likelihood fit. The inclusion of V(qq)Z(bb) as a validation process is a useful cross-check. The measurement is statistics-limited and consistent with the SM, providing a new data point that constrains possible BSM enhancements of the high-pT VH rate. The paper makes tabulated results available in HEPData, which aids reproducibility. The main weakness is that the robustness of the QCD transfer-factor functional form is asserted but not quantified; this does not undermine the central SM-consistency claim but should be addressed for completeness.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5.1] The paper states that alternative functional forms for TF(mSD) were tested and found to have a negligible impact on the final result, but no numbers are given. Since the QCD transfer factor is the dominant source of systematic uncertainty, please quantify the maximum shift observed in mu_VH (or provide a short closure test) to substantiate the robustness claim.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (1)] The expression TF(mSD) = a(1 - log(mSD/GeV)) + b log(mSD/GeV) is a linear function of log(mSD), not a Bernstein polynomial unless the variable is normalized to [0,1]. Please clarify the mass range over which this parameterization is used and the definition of the coefficients a and b, so that the functional form is unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. 7 / Table 1] The quoted uncertainties on mu_VH and mu_VZ are total uncertainties only. Reporting the statistical and systematic components separately, at least for the combined result, would allow readers to assess the relative importance of the dominant QCD transfer-factor uncertainty and the statistical component.
  4. [Figs. 1 and 2] The lower panels are described as ratio panels, but the axes and plotted quantity are not labeled in the captions or text. Adding concise axis labels or a sentence describing the ratio (e.g., data minus background divided by background) would improve readability. The captions also use compressed notation such as '68GeV<mJet2SD<110GeV'; spelling out m(SD) would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the signal extraction is a data-driven fit with independent signal templates and an explicit, tested transfer-factor ansatz.

full rationale

The central result, mu_VH = 0.72^{+0.75}_{-0.71}, is obtained from a binned maximum-likelihood fit to the mSD distribution using independent Monte Carlo signal and background templates. The QCD multijet background is estimated from a data control region via NSR(mSD) = R^MC_SR/CR N^data_CR(mSD) TF(mSD), with TF a first-order Bernstein polynomial in log(mSD) whose coefficients are fitted as nuisance parameters in the same likelihood (Sec. 5.1). This is data-driven background estimation, not a circular derivation: the transfer factor is a smooth, monotone function that cannot absorb a localized 125 GeV resonance, the V-mass sidebands and the tt control region provide independent constraints, and the V(qq)Z(bb) process is extracted simultaneously as an independent cross-check. The paper explicitly identifies the transfer-factor modeling as the dominant systematic and states that alternative functional forms were tested with negligible impact, so the assumption is transparent and its uncertainty is propagated. The only self-citation touching the transfer factor, Ref. [31], supplies the Bernstein polynomial parameterization, but the polynomial order is selected here by a Fisher F-test and alternatives are tested, so the citation is not load-bearing. No equation or fitted parameter is equated by construction with the claimed signal strength, and no prediction is renamed from a fit. The observed significance of 1.00 sigma (expected 1.64) is a hypothesis test against background, not a forced outcome. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. It measures a Standard Model process using existing theoretical predictions, simulation, and data-driven background techniques. The free parameters are background-shape and calibration parameters fitted to control regions or in the final fit, all standard for an LHC search.

free parameters (3)
  • QCD transfer factor coefficients a and b (per data-taking period) = Not stated; obtained from the simultaneous profile-likelihood fit
    TF(mSD)=a(1-log(mSD/GeV))+b log(mSD/GeV), with a and b free in the fit (Sec. 5.1, Sec. 7). These are the dominant systematic source.
  • Jet mass resolution scale factor = 1.14-1.25 depending on data period
    Measured in the W-enriched control region and propagated to all resonant backgrounds (Sec. 5.2).
  • p(QCD) tagger efficiency on the V-candidate jet = 0.70-0.89 depending on data period
    Measured in the W-enriched control region and applied to the normalization of VH and VV processes (Sec. 5.2).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model Higgs boson production cross sections and branching fractions from theory predictions are correct, and the ggH, VBF, and ttH processes are fixed to their SM predictions in the fit.
    Used in Sec. 7 and Sec. 5 to fix backgrounds. If these predictions are wrong, the interpretation of mu_VH changes.
  • domain assumption The ParticleNet-MD classifier, trained on simulated jets with uniform mass and pT, accurately models flavor-tagging efficiencies and mass decorrelation in data.
    The tagger defines the signal region; deficiencies would bias signal extraction. Relies on Ref. [80].
  • domain assumption Detector simulation with GEANT4 and the Monte Carlo generators (MadGraph, POWHEG, PYTHIA) correctly model the signal and background kinematics and mass shapes.
    All signal and resonant background templates come from MC; any mismodeling of mSD shapes propagates to the fit.
  • standard math The profile likelihood ratio and asymptotic approximations used by the CMS statistical tool COMBINE are valid for extracting the quoted confidence intervals.
    Standard statistical procedure used in LHC Higgs measurements (Refs. [86], [89]).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36539 in / 11279 out tokens · 123456 ms · 2026-08-03T11:39:05.774896+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search is conducted for standard model Higgs bosons with large transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) decaying to bottom quark pairs and produced in association with a hadronically decaying W or Z boson at the LHC. The result is based on a dataset of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector in 2016$-$2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Boosted Higgs, W, and Z boson decays are reconstructed using large-radius jets with $p_\mathrm{T}$ $\gt$ 450 GeV and identified with heavy-flavor classifiers based on a graph convolutional neural network. The observed signal strength relative to the standard model expectation is $\mu$ = 0.72 $^{+0.75}_{-0.71}$ including statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05362 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The near-perfect model agreement with data in the fail regions is by construction: these [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Higgs boson candidate mSD distribution in the D(bb vs. QCD) fail (left) and pass region (right), both in the category with V candidate mass between 68 and 110 GeV. The grey bands in the lower panels represent the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. The V(qq)Z(bb) process is separated from other V(qq)V(qq) processes since it is used to validate the analysis strategy. The background in b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Higgs boson candidate mSD distribution in the D(bb vs. QCD) fail (left) and pass region (right) regions, in the category where the V candidate mSD is in the range 40–68 GeV (upper) and 110–201 GeV (lower). Other details are as described in the caption of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electroweak Restoration: SMEFT and HEFT

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    High-energy amplitude ratios for longitudinal di-boson production approach unity in the SM and dimension-6 SMEFT but not necessarily in HEFT, making the W±_L Z_L to W±_L h cross section ratio a promising discriminator...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020,arXiv:1207.7214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021,arXiv:1207.7235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in pp collisions at √s= 7 and 8 TeV

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    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. [Corrigendum:doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    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. [Erratum: doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05581-5]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Weak and electromagnetic interactions

    A. Salam, “Weak and electromagnetic interactions”, inElementary particle physics: relativistic groups and analyticity, N. Svartholm, ed., p. 367. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1968. Proceedings of the eighth Nobel symposium

    1968

  7. [7]

    Partial-symmetries of weak interactions

    S. L. Glashow, “Partial-symmetries of weak interactions”,Nucl. Phys.22(1961) 579, doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2

    doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2 1961

  8. [8]

    A model of leptons

    S. Weinberg, “A model of leptons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.19(1967) 1264, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.19.1264 1967

  9. [9]

    Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.321 1964

  10. [10]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 12(1964) 132,doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9

    doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 1964

  11. [11]

    Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.508 1964

  12. [12]

    Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.145(1966) 1156,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156. 12

    doi:10.1103/physrev.145.1156 1966

  13. [13]

    Global conservation laws and massless particles

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.585 1964

  14. [14]

    Very boosted Higgs in gluon fusion

    C. Grojean, E. Salvioni, M. Schlaffer, and A. Weiler, “Very boosted Higgs in gluon fusion”, JHEP05(2014) 022,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)022,arXiv:1312.3317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Boosted Higgs shapes

    M. Schlaffer et al., “Boosted Higgs shapes”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3120, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3120-z,arXiv:1405.4295

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Usefulness of effective field theory for boosted Higgs production

    S. Dawson, I. M. Lewis, and M. Zeng, “Usefulness of effective field theory for boosted Higgs production”,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 074012, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.074012,arXiv:1501.04103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Modeling BSM effects on the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in an EFT approach

    M. Grazzini, A. Ilnicka, M. Spira, and M. Wiesemann, “Modeling BSM effects on the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in an EFT approach”,JHEP03(2017) 115, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)115,arXiv:1612.00283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Higgs characterisation via vector-boson fusion and associated production: NLO and parton-shower effects

    F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari, and M. Zaro, “Higgs characterisation via vector-boson fusion and associated production: NLO and parton-shower effects”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2710,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2710-5,arXiv:1311.1829

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Electroweak Higgs boson production in the standard model effective field theory beyond leading order in QCD

    C. Degrande et al., “Electroweak Higgs boson production in the standard model effective field theory beyond leading order in QCD”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 262, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4793-x,arXiv:1609.04833

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Precise predictions for boosted Higgs production

    K. Becker et al., “Precise predictions for boosted Higgs production”,SciPost Phys. Core7 (2024) 001,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.7.1.001,arXiv:2005.07762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Benchmarking simplified template cross sections inW Hproduction

    J. Brehmer et al., “Benchmarking simplified template cross sections inW Hproduction”, JHEP11(2019) 034,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)034,arXiv:1908.06980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Vices and virtues of Higgs effective field theories at large energy

    A. Biekotter et al., “Vices and virtues of Higgs effective field theories at large energy”, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 055029,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.055029, arXiv:1406.7320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Higher order QCD predictions for associated Higgs production with anomalous couplings to gauge bosons

    K. Mimasu, V . Sanz, and C. Williams, “Higher order QCD predictions for associated Higgs production with anomalous couplings to gauge bosons”,JHEP08(2016) 039, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)039,arXiv:1512.02572

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks”,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 121801,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121801, arXiv:1808.08242

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Measurements of WH and ZH production with Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and direct constraints on the charm Yukawa coupling in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of WH and ZH production with Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and direct constraints on the charm Yukawa coupling in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP04(2025) 075, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)075,arXiv:2410.19611

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Study of high-transverse-momentum Higgs boson production in association with a vector boson in the qqb b final state with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Study of high-transverse-momentum Higgs boson production in association with a vector boson in the qqb b final state with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 131802,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.131802, arXiv:2312.07605. References 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Measurement of simplified template cross sections of the Higgs boson produced in association with W or Z bosons in the H→b b decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of simplified template cross sections of the Higgs boson produced in association with W or Z bosons in the H→b b decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 092011, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092011,arXiv:2312.07562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Constraints on Higgs boson production with large transverse momentum using H→b b decays in the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Constraints on Higgs boson production with large transverse momentum using H→b b decays in the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 092003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.092003,arXiv:2111.08340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Inclusive search for highly boosted Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Inclusive search for highly boosted Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP12 (2020) 085,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)085,arXiv:2006.13251

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Measurement of boosted Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion or gluon fusion in the H→b b decay mode using LHC proton-proton collision data at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of boosted Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion or gluon fusion in the H→b b decay mode using LHC proton-proton collision data at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP12(2024) 035,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)035, arXiv:2407.08012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    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

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC run 3

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    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. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations”,JHEP06(2002) 029,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  46. [46]

    NLO electroweak automation and precise predictions for W+multijet production at the LHC

    S. Kallweit et al., “NLO electroweak automation and precise predictions for W+multijet production at the LHC”,JHEP04(2015) 012,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)012, arXiv:1412.5157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    NLO QCD+EW predictions for V + jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging

    S. Kallweit et al., “NLO QCD+EW predictions for V + jets including off-shell vector-boson decays and multijet merging”,JHEP04(2016) 021, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)021,arXiv:1511.08692

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    NLO QCD+EW automation and precise predictions for V+multijet production

    S. Kallweit et al., “NLO QCD+EW automation and precise predictions for V+multijet production”, in50th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions, p. 121. 2015.arXiv:1505.05704

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds

    J. M. Lindert et al., “Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 829,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1,arXiv:1705.04664

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    MCFMfor the Tevatron and the LHC

    J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFMfor the Tevatron and the LHC”,Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.205-206(2010) 10,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, arXiv:1007.3492

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  53. [53]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Single-topt-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme withPOWHEGand aMC@NLO

    R. Frederix, E. Re, and P . Torrielli, “Single-topt-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme withPOWHEGand aMC@NLO”,JHEP09(2012) 130, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130,arXiv:1207.5391. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEGmethod

    E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEGmethod”,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1547, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z,arXiv:1009.2450

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    MiNNLOPS: a new method to match NNLO QCD to parton showers

    P . F. Monni et al., “MiNNLOPS: a new method to match NNLO QCD to parton showers”, JHEP05(2020) 143,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2020)143,arXiv:1908.06987. [Erratum:doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2020)143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    MiNNLOPS: optimizing 2→1 hadronic processes

    P . F. Monni, E. Re, and M. Wiesemann, “MiNNLOPS: optimizing 2→1 hadronic processes”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 1075, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08658-5,arXiv:2006.04133

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    NLO Higgs+jet production at large transverse momenta including top quark mass effects

    T. Neumann, “NLO Higgs+jet production at large transverse momenta including top quark mass effects”,J. Phys. Comm.2(2018) 095017, doi:10.1088/2399-6528/aadfbf,arXiv:1802.02981

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [60]

    NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower inPOWHEG

    P . Nason and C. Oleari, “NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower inPOWHEG”,JHEP02(2010) 037,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)037, arXiv:0911.5299

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    HW±/HZ+0 and 1 jet at NLO with thePOWHEGbox interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO

    G. Luisoni, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano, “HW±/HZ+0 and 1 jet at NLO with thePOWHEGbox interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO”,JHEP10 (2013) 083,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)083,arXiv:1306.2542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in thePOWHEGBOX

    H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, “Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in thePOWHEGBOX”,Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 094003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094003,arXiv:1501.04498

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    Fully differential vector-boson-fusion Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order

    M. Cacciari et al., “Fully differential vector-boson-fusion Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order”,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 082002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.082002,arXiv:1506.02660. [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.139901]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  64. [64]

    Vector-boson fusion Higgs production at three loops in QCD

    F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg, “Vector-boson fusion Higgs production at three loops in QCD”,Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 072001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.072001, arXiv:1606.00840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    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

  66. [66]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [67]

    Merging meets matching in MC@NLO

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [68]

    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

  69. [69]

    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. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid

    CMS Collaboration, “Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid”, CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015

    2015

  71. [71]

    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

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    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, 2017

    2017

  74. [74]

    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

  75. [75]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [76]

    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

  77. [77]

    Soft drop

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,JHEP05(2014) 146, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146,arXiv:1402.2657

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [78]

    Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network”,JINST17(2022) P07023,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/07/P07023, arXiv:2201.08458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    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

  80. [80]

    Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST20(2025) P11006, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/11/P11006,arXiv:2510.10228

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.