Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

No statistically significant dimuon resonance appears in the 35–75 GeV mass range in 140 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton–proton collisions

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 06:58 UTC pith:6Z3M5RHI

load-bearing objection First ATLAS dimuon search in 35–75 GeV with a novel GPR background; the null result is plausible but the background validation is simulation-only and needs a data-sideband closure before I'd trust the limits. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21361 v3 pith:6Z3M5RHI submitted 2026-01-29 hep-ex

Search for dimuon resonance in the 35 to 75 GeV mass range using 140 fb⁻¹ of 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords dimuon resonanceGaussian process regressionATLASdark photondark matter mediatorDrell-Yan backgroundLHC Run 2muon pairs
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 searches for new particles that decay into a muon–antimuon pair with invariant mass between 35 and 75 GeV, using 140 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton–proton collision data. Because the Standard Model background, dominated by Drell–Yan production, has a complicated shape in this region—including structures from muon trigger thresholds—the analysis models the background with Gaussian process regression instead of a fixed analytic function. No statistically significant excess is observed; the largest local fluctuation is 2.3σ at 57.5 GeV, with negligible global significance. The paper reports 95% confidence-level upper limits on the fiducial production cross-section of a new resonance decaying to muons, ranging from 20 fb to 110 fb depending on mass. These limits are interpreted as new constraints on dark-photon kinetic mixing and on couplings of a simplified dark-matter mediator.

Core claim

The central claim is that a model-independent search for dimuon resonances in the 35–75 GeV mass range, using Gaussian process regression to model the background, finds no evidence for new physics. The observed dimuon mass spectrum is consistent with the Standard Model background. The strongest excess, at 57.5 GeV, has a local significance of 2.3σ and a negligible global significance. The analysis sets 95% CL upper limits on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio for a narrow resonance decaying to muons, from 20 fb to 110 fb, and interprets these as limits on the dark-photon kinetic mixing parameter ε² between 1×10⁻⁶ and 9×10⁻⁶ and on the Z′–lepton coupling for a simplified dark-ma

What carries the argument

Gaussian process regression (GPR) is the central tool. The background shape is treated as a Gaussian process with a radial basis function (RBF) kernel, whose hyper-parameters (covariance strength k and length scale ℓ) are tuned per resonance-mass region to balance flexibility and bias. The prior mean is a ninth-degree polynomial fitted to a generator-smeared Drell–Yan simulation template. A simultaneous profile likelihood fit extracts a possible signal; a spurious-signal test on background-only templates defines the systematic uncertainty of the background model, and signal-injection linearity is verified. The GPR approach replaces the traditional analytic background parameterisations that s

Load-bearing premise

The entire background estimate rests on the assumption that the generator-smeared Drell–Yan template used to set the Gaussian process prior mean reproduces the true data background shape, particularly in the 30–45 GeV region where muon trigger thresholds create a rapidly varying spectrum.

What would settle it

A concrete test: if a narrow resonance with fiducial cross-section above the quoted 95% CL limit existed at, say, 50 GeV, the analysis would be expected to find it. Conversely, the claim would be wrong if the GP background model could absorb a real signal; this can be probed by injecting a known artificial resonance into the data spectrum (or into a high-statistics background-only simulation) and checking that the fitted signal strength recovers the injected value with the quoted uncertainty, and by comparing the GP background prediction in the 30–45 GeV region against an independent data-driv

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

If this is right

  • Any new resonance in the 35–75 GeV mass range with a fiducial cross-section above the quoted 95% CL limits is excluded, narrowing the parameter space for light dark-photon and dark-matter-mediator models.
  • The paper establishes Gaussian process regression as a viable background-modeling method for resonance searches in mass regions where trigger-threshold effects make analytic functions inadequate.
  • This is the first ATLAS search in this specific mass window, complementing lower-mass searches by CMS and LHCb and extending coverage to 35–75 GeV.
  • The dark-photon kinetic mixing parameter ε² is constrained to be below about 1×10⁻⁶ to 9×10⁻⁶ for dark-photon masses between 35 and 75 GeV.
  • If a future dataset with more integrated luminosity reveals an excess, the GP-based framework provides a ready signal-extraction procedure for confirmation or exclusion.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same GPR background-modeling approach could be applied to other final states, such as dielectron or ditau resonances, in mass regions where analytic background functions fail, provided a reliable template for the prior mean exists.
  • The sensitivity improvement in the 35–45 GeV region over earlier scouting-based searches suggests that using standard unprescaled muon triggers combined with a flexible background model can extend the reach of resonance searches to lower masses, where trigger turn-ons become sharper.
  • Because the GP prior mean is derived from a simulation template, the blindness of the method depends on the fidelity of that template to the data; a fully data-driven prior (e.g., from sidebands) would be a testable alternative.
  • The 2.3σ local excess near 57.5 GeV, though not significant, is a concrete benchmark: whether it grows or fades in future LHC data will directly test the background model's reliability in that region.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a model-independent search for narrow dimuon resonances in the invariant-mass range 35–75 GeV, using 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV pp collisions recorded by ATLAS. The background is modelled with a Gaussian process regression (GPR) whose prior mean is a ninth-degree polynomial fitted to a generator-smeared Drell–Yan template, with kernel hyper-parameters tuned on background-only simulation templates. No statistically significant excess is observed; the largest local deviation is 2.3σ at 57.5 GeV. The paper sets 95% CL upper limits on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio, ranging from 20 fb to 110 fb, and interprets them as constraints on a dark-photon kinetic-mixing parameter epsilon^2 and on lepton couplings in a Z' model.

Significance. If the result is sound, it closes a gap in ATLAS dimuon resonance searches and claims improved sensitivity over CMS in the 35–45 GeV region, where CMS relied on scouting data. The methodological novelty — using GPR inside a simultaneous signal-plus-background profile likelihood fit — is of general interest for low-mass resonance searches. The analysis includes several strong validation elements: signal-injection linearity within 3%, spurious-signal below 0.5σ applied as a systematic, and a CLs limit-setting procedure. However, the central claim depends critically on the GPR background model being unbiased in data, and that is the point needing the most scrutiny.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 7.2, Eq. (3), Table 3] The text states that larger k values are used near the edges 'to constrain the GP prediction around the prior mean', while smaller k in the central region allow greater flexibility. This is the opposite of the behaviour of the RBF kernel in Eq. (3): the covariance amplitude k controls how far the GP can deviate from the prior mean, so a larger k makes the GP more data-driven and less constrained, not more. This directly concerns the rationale for the hyper-parameter sets in Table 3. Please correct or clarify the argument, or show that the effect of k is being described in a different convention.
  2. [Sec. 7.2, Fig. 5, Sec. 3.3] The entire validation of the GP background model — hyper-parameter tuning, spurious-signal measurement, and linearity tests — is performed on simulation templates reweighted from the generator-smearing sample to the fully simulated DY sample. No data-based closure test is presented. The spurious-signal systematic is derived from those same templates and therefore cannot cover a data/MC mismodeling in the 30–45 GeV trigger-threshold region, which is precisely where the claimed improvement over CMS resides. This is load-bearing for the quoted 20–110 fb limits. Please provide a data-level closure test, for example a background-only fit to the observed 30–80 GeV spectrum with a chi-square/p-value, a sideband cross-check, or a data-based signal-injection test at mass points not used in the final scan.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Sec. 7] The paper asserts that because the GP prior mean is determined before the generator-smearing sample is reweighted to the fully simulated sample, 'the resulting bias in the uncertainty estimation from background modelling is negligible'. No quantitative test is shown to support this claim. The prior mean is a ninth-degree polynomial fitted to the un-reweighted generator-smearing sample, while the hyper-parameters are tuned on the reweighted template. This inconsistency can affect the GP posterior if the reweighting is not small (especially near threshold structures). Please quantify the effect or remove the unsupported claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 2, 6, 7] Several figure captions and axis labels contain garbled text, e.g. '3x3p +2x2px +1p + 0p' in Fig. 2 and '3 10× 2.5' in Fig. 6. The y-axis label in Fig. 7 appears to show '10 3' rather than 10^{-3}; please fix.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The statement that acceptance and mass-shape differences between vector and axial-vector Z' models are negligible is not backed by a quantitative comparison. A brief reference or figure would help.
  3. [Sec. 7.1] The likelihood uses a Gaussian term with variance 'sqrt(N_GP_i)' without defining the convention explicitly. Since the same symbol is used for the data-count variance, please state whether this is a Gaussian approximation to the Poisson distribution and give the exact form.
  4. [Sec. 8, Eq. (4)] The test statistic for the upper limit is written with the denominator L(data|0, \hat{\hat\theta}(0)) for \hat\mu<0. This matches the standard definition but is worth a small clarification that for \hat\mu<0 the notation \hat{\hat\theta}(0) is indeed the conditional estimator under the background-only hypothesis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the GPR background prior and kernel are calibrated on independent DY Monte Carlo templates, and the 'no significant excess' claim and 20-110 fb limits are obtained from a profile-likelihood fit to the observed data, not from the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: (i) the GP prior mean is a ninth-degree polynomial fitted to a generator-smeared DY sample reweighted to full simulation (Sec 3.3, Sec 7); (ii) RBF hyper-parameters (k, ℓ) are tuned on that same background-only template via spurious-signal and linearity tests (Sec 7.2, Table 3); (iii) the spurious-signal envelope is measured on background-only templates and carried as a systematic uncertainty (Sec 7.2, Fig 5); (iv) the signal strength is extracted from a simultaneous profile-likelihood fit to the observed data, with the GP constrained by its prior mean and covariance (Sec 7.1, Eq. 4); (v) 95% CL limits and p0 values are computed on data with the CLs method (Sec 8, Figs 7-8). No prediction reduces to its own input: the background inputs come from simulation, the data are never used to set the prior mean or kernel, and the central claims ('no statistically significant excess', 20-110 fb limits, eps^2 in 1e-6-9e-6) are functions of the observed spectrum. The only self-referential element is the citation of ATLAS's own smooth-background recommendations (Ref [63]) for the SS < 0.5-sigma criterion; it guides tuning but does not define the result and is at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation. The residual concern, that the GP calibration and spurious-signal systematic are validated only on the same MC template used to build the prior, with no data-based closure test, especially near the 30-45 GeV trigger-threshold structure, is a question of template fidelity and systematic coverage (a correctness risk), not circularity: if the template were wrong the limits could be biased, but they would not be predetermined by the inputs. The paper's own claim (Sec 7) that the pre-reweighting prior mean gives 'negligible' bias is a calibration assertion, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and derives no new theoretical results; its claim is a measurement. The free parameters are analysis choices (GP kernel, polynomial degree, signal-shape fits). The axioms are standard statistical machinery plus the faithfulness of the simulated background template, which is the load-bearing premise identified in the weakest_assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • GP kernel hyper-parameters (k, ℓ) = k = 2e8-5e9, ℓ = 4.4-12.1 GeV depending on m_X range
    Six sets in Table 3, chosen by spurious-signal and linearity criteria on simulated background templates; affect sensitivity and cause limit discontinuities.
  • GP prior mean polynomial degree = 9
    Ninth-degree polynomial fitted to generator-smeared DY template (Section 7); the degree is chosen ad hoc, not derived from first principles.
  • Signal acceptance-times-efficiency polynomial coefficients = 2nd- and 3rd-order polynomial fits
    A×ε and ε parameterised as functions of resonance mass (Section 5.1, Fig. 2); fitted to MC samples.
  • DSCB Gaussian-core width σ(m) = linear fit from 0.6 to 1.3 GeV
    Detector-resolution width interpolated linearly over mass (Section 5.2, Fig. 3a).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The dimuon background in 30-80 GeV is dominated by Z/γ* → μμ production, with trigger-threshold effects in 30-45 GeV captured by the generator-smearing simulation template.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 and used to define the GP prior mean in Section 7.
  • standard math Binned dimuon counts can be treated as Gaussian with variance equal to the mean.
    First term of the likelihood in Section 7.1 approximates Poisson counts with a Gaussian of variance N_i^GP; valid at the high event rates shown in Figure 4.
  • domain assumption The GP with RBF kernel and constant prior mean can represent the residual background shape after subtracting the polynomial mean.
    Covariance in Eq. (3) and GP prior in the likelihood, Section 7.1; the choice of kernel and length scale determines flexibility.
  • standard math Asymptotic profile-likelihood formulas (Cowan et al.) and CLs apply.
    Section 8 uses the asymptotic q_mu and CLs for limit setting; standard in LHC searches.
  • domain assumption The signal line shape is a Breit-Wigner convolved with a double-sided Crystal Ball, with parameters interpolated from MC.
    Section 5.2; MC validation shown in Figure 3b.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 50599 in / 14856 out tokens · 154680 ms · 2026-08-03T06:58:41.207908+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A model-independent search for low-mass resonances decaying into pairs of oppositely charged muons is presented. The analysis uses proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 140 fb$^{-1}$, recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018. The search targets hypothetical dimuon resonances in the invariant mass range from 35 GeV to 75 GeV. The modelling of this mass region is particularly challenging for conventional analytic background parameterisations. To address this, a Gaussian process regression technique is used to model the background. The dimuon mass spectrum is analysed for potential signals, and no statistically significant excess is observed. Upper limits at the 95% confidence level are set on the fiducial production cross-section of new resonances decaying promptly into muons, ranging from 20 fb to 110 fb, depending on the resonance mass. These results are further interpreted in the context of dark-photon and dark-matter-mediator models, leading to new constraints on their parameter spaces.

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. Search for new scalars via $X \rightarrow SH \rightarrow b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    No excess over background is found in ATLAS's first search for X→SH→4b, which sets 95% CL upper limits of 0.7 fb–2.6 pb on the production cross-section times branching ratio.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk,Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept.405(2005) 279, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    J. L. Feng,Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48(2010) 495, arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    T. A. Porter, R. P. Johnson and P. W. Graham,Dark Matter Searches with Astroparticle Data, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.49(2011) 155, arXiv:1104.2836 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron

    Planck Collaboration,Planck 2018 results - I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A1, arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using√𝑠=13TeV𝑝𝑝collision data collected by the ATLAS detector, JHEP05(2019) 142, arXiv:1903.01400 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3(2008) S08001

    2008

  7. [7]

    Abercrombie et al.,Dark Matter benchmark models for early LHC Run-2 Searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS Dark Matter Forum, Phys

    D. Abercrombie et al.,Dark Matter benchmark models for early LHC Run-2 Searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS Dark Matter Forum, Phys. Dark Univ.27(2020) 100371, arXiv:1507.00966 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Curtin, R

    D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori and J. Shelton,Illuminating Dark Photons with High-Energy Colliders, JHEP02(2015) 157, arXiv:1412.0018 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for a Narrow Resonance Lighter than200GeV Decaying to a Pair of Muons in Proton–Proton Collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 131802, arXiv:1912.04776 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for direct production of GeV-scale resonances decaying to a pair of muons in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP12(2023) 070, arXiv:2309.16003 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    LHCb Collaboration,Search for𝐴 ′→𝜇+𝜇− Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 041801, arXiv:1910.06926 [hep-ex]. 22

    arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  13. [13]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams,Gaussian processes for machine learning, Adaptive computation and machine learning, MIT Press, 2006 I, 1,isbn: 026218253X

    2006

  14. [14]

    Frate, K

    M. Frate, K. Cranmer, S. Kalia, A. Vandenberg-Rodes and D. Whiteson, Modeling Smooth Backgrounds and Generic Localized Signals with Gaussian Processes, 2017, arXiv:1709.05681 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Gandrakota, A

    A. Gandrakota, A. Lath, A. V. Morozov and S. Murthy, Model selection and signal extraction using Gaussian Process regression, JHEP02(2023) 230, arXiv:2202.05856 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for boosted diphoton resonances in the10to70GeV mass range using138fb −1 of13TeV𝑝𝑝collisions with the ATLAS detector, JHEP07(2023) 155, arXiv:2211.04172 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for low-mass resonances decaying into two jets and produced in association with a photon or a jet at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 032002, arXiv:2403.08547 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using139fb−1 of𝑝𝑝collision data collected at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B796(2019) 68, arXiv:1903.06248 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Insertable B-Layer: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 907

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15(2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  26. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P09015, arXiv:2004.13447 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2𝑝𝑝collision data set at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 578, arXiv:2012.00578 [hep-ex]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Degrande et al.,UFO – The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput

    C. Degrande et al.,UFO – The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun183(2012) 1201, arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Alloul, N

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250, arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Backović et al.,Higher-order QCD predictions for dark matter production at the LHC in simplified models with s-channel mediators, Eur

    M. Backović et al.,Higher-order QCD predictions for dark matter production at the LHC in simplified models with s-channel mediators, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 482, arXiv:1508.05327 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  31. [31]

    A. Albert et al.,Recommendations of the LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Comparing LHC searches for dark matter mediators in visible and invisible decay channels and calculations of the thermal relic density, Phys. Dark Univ.26(2019) 100377, arXiv:1703.05703 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Watt and R

    G. Watt and R. Thorne, Study of Monte Carlo approach to experimental uncertainty propagation with MSTW 2008 PDFs, JHEP08(2012) 052, arXiv:1205.4024 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands,A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  36. [36]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv:1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Ajjath et al.,Resummed Drell-Yan cross-section at N3LL, JHEP10(2020) 153, arXiv:2001.11377 [hep-ph]

    A.H. Ajjath et al.,Resummed Drell-Yan cross-section at N3LL, JHEP10(2020) 153, arXiv:2001.11377 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie–Landshoff diffractive model, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-017, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965

    arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche,Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP12(2008) 039, arXiv:0808.3674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer, Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 220, arXiv:1604.06792 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP03(2008) 038, arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP09(2012) 049, arXiv:1111.1220 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  47. [47]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert,QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP05(2009) 053, arXiv:0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  50. [50]

    Frixione, G

    S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi and P. Nason, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction, JHEP09(2007) 126, arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Re,Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur

    E. Re,Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1547, arXiv:1009.2450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2003

  53. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration, A search for the dimuon decay of the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B812(2021) 135980, arXiv:2007.07830 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS track reconstruction algorithms in dense environments in LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 673, arXiv:1704.07983 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Studies of the muon momentum calibration and performance of the ATLAS detector with𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 686, arXiv:2212.07338 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Oreglia,A Study of the Reactions𝜓′→𝛾𝛾𝜓, SLAC-R-0236 (1980), url:www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-r-236.pdf

    M. Oreglia,A Study of the Reactions𝜓′→𝛾𝛾𝜓, SLAC-R-0236 (1980), url:www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-r-236.pdf

    1980

  58. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for Scalar Diphoton Resonances in the Mass Range 65–600GeV with the ATLAS Detector in𝑝𝑝Collision Data at√𝑠=8TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 171801, arXiv:1407.6583 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for resonances in diphoton events at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP09(2016) 001, arXiv:1606.03833 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J

    J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001, arXiv:1510.03865 [hep-ph]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  61. [61]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 292, arXiv:1603.05598 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    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, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Recommendations for the Modeling of Smooth Backgrounds, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-028, 2020,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2743717

    arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    R. W. S. Alan V. Oppenheim,Discrete-Time Signal Processing, Third Edition,2009, isbn: 978-1292-02572-8

    2009

  65. [65]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross and O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    A. L. Read,Presentation of search results: the𝐶𝐿𝑠 technique, J. Phys. G28(2002) 2693

    2002

  67. [67]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2922210. 26 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 103, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 123, S. Abdelhameed 119a, K. Abeling 55, N.J. Abicht 49, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 45, A. Aboulhorma 36e, H. Abramowicz 156, B.S. Acharya 69a,69b,m, A. Ackermann 63a, C....

    arXiv 2025