Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Photon-fusion production of W boson pairs is observed with a measured rate that matches the standard model prediction.

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 06:53 UTC pith:WONOA6O2

load-bearing objection Solid confirmatory CMS measurement of photon-fusion WW at 13 TeV with useful new CP-odd EFT limits; the inclusive cross section carries a disclosed but real model dependence on SuperChic4 dissociation fractions. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21574 v2 pith:WONOA6O2 submitted 2026-01-29 hep-ex

Measurement and effective field theory interpretation of the photon-fusion production cross section of a pair of W bosons in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords photon fusionW boson pair productionexclusive productioncross section measurementeffective field theoryanomalous quartic gauge couplingsdimension-8 operatorsproton-proton collisions
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 the observation of photon-fusion production of W boson pairs in proton-proton collisions, where two photons radiated by the protons interact to produce a W+W- pair. The measured inclusive cross section is 643 +82 -78 femtobarns, matching the standard model prediction of 631 +/- 126 femtobarns; the fiducial cross section likewise agrees. The agreement confirms that photon-fusion WW production is well described by the standard model and allows the authors to set strong constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings via dimension-8 effective field theory operators, including limits on CP-odd operators for the first time. If correct, this provides a new probe of electroweak self-interactions complementary to vector-boson scattering measurements.

Core claim

The central discovery is the measurement of the photon-fusion (γγ→W+W−) production cross section using events with one electron, one muon, and no additional tracks at the dilepton vertex. The inclusive cross section is measured to be 643 +82 −78 fb, consistent with the standard model prediction of 631 ± 126 fb, and the fiducial cross section is 3.96 +0.53 −0.51 fb versus 3.87 ± 0.77 fb predicted. The signal is observed with a significance well above five standard deviations. From the same data, 95% confidence-level intervals are set on dimension-8 operators describing anomalous quartic gauge couplings; several of these limits are the most stringent to date, and the CP-odd operators are const

What carries the argument

The experimental handle is the exclusive-like signature: exactly one isolated electron and one isolated muon of opposite charge, with zero additional tracks associated with the e-mu vertex. This track veto suppresses quark- and gluon-initiated backgrounds by more than two orders of magnitude while retaining roughly half of the elastic photon-fusion signal. A binned maximum likelihood fit to the transverse momentum of the e-mu pair then separates the signal, which has large missing transverse momentum, from residual backgrounds. The EFT interpretation is obtained by reweighting simulated events according to how each dimension-8 operator changes the yield at high transverse momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute signal yield and acceptance are taken from a Monte Carlo simulation whose split into elastic, semi-dissociative, and fully dissociative production (with the latter two about five times the elastic) is not checked by tagging the outgoing protons, so the measured cross section and EFT limits move if these fractions or the proton survival probabilities are incorrect.

What would settle it

A forward-proton-tagged sample that measures the elastic and dissociative components separately would directly test the simulation; a serious mismatch between the predicted and observed tagged cross sections would invalidate the absolute signal model. Alternatively, repeating the measurement at a different centre-of-mass energy, where the dissociation fractions change in a calculable way, would expose a problem if the cross section scales unexpectedly.

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

If this is right

  • If the measured cross section is taken at face value, photon-fusion WW production is a confirmed standard model process with a measured rate within about 10% accuracy.
  • The EFT limits now cover both CP-even and CP-odd dimension-8 operators, and are the strongest for several quartic-gauge-coupling operators, constraining possible new physics in electroweak gauge self-interactions.
  • The success of the zero-extra-track selection validates a technique that can be applied to other photon-fusion final states, such as ZZ or Zγ, at the same collider.
  • Because the signal yield is dominated by semi- and fully dissociative events in the simulation, improving the precision of the measurement will require a better theoretical control of the proton survival and dissociation fractions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A dedicated measurement with forward proton tagging would test the simulation's prediction that semi- and fully dissociative events outnumber elastic events by about five to one; if that ratio is wrong, the inclusive cross section and EFT limits would shift.
  • The same zero-extra-track analysis could be applied to photon-fusion production of Z boson pairs or Zγ, potentially constraining additional dimension-8 operators and cross-checking the photon-flux modeling.
  • Because the signal is sensitive to the photon distribution of the proton, a precision measurement of this process might also provide a constraint on the proton elastic form factor or survival probability, effectively turning it into a probe of proton structure.
  • The observed agreement with the standard model leaves room for new physics that does not alter this process at the current precision; combining with more data could push the EFT limits by a factor of a few.

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 the first CMS observation of photon-fusion W+W− production in pp collisions at 13 TeV, using 138 fb−1 of data. Events are selected with one isolated electron, one isolated muon of opposite charge, and no additional tracks at the dilepton vertex. A binned maximum-likelihood fit to the pT(eμ) distribution in the signal region (N_tracks=0) and a control region (1≤N_tracks≤5) yields a signal significance well above 5σ, an inclusive cross section of 643+82−78 fb, and a fiducial cross section of 3.96+0.53−0.51 fb, both consistent with SuperChic4 predictions (631±126 fb and 3.87±0.77 fb). The results are also interpreted as 95% CL constraints on dimension-8 anomalous quartic gauge couplings.

Significance. If the result holds, this is the first CMS observation of γγ→W+W− and the first constraints on CP-odd dimension-8 operators in this channel. The analysis uses a well-established exclusive-event selection and a data-driven approach for the dominant backgrounds, with the DY and inclusive WW normalizations constrained from a large control region. The paper provides tabulated results in HEPData and uses the standard CMS statistical toolchain (Combine/RooFit/RooStats). The EFT limits are competitive with existing CMS measurements. The main weakness is the model dependence on the SuperChic4 prediction for the elastic/semi-dissociative/fully-dissociative composition, which is not included as an uncertainty in the quoted inclusive cross section.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8, §9.1] The inclusive cross section quoted as 643+82−78 fb does not include the uncertainty on the SuperChic4 prediction for the elastic/semi-dissociative/fully-dissociative composition, even though §3 states that semi- and fully dissociative components are about five times the elastic contribution. Section 8 assigns 1%, 10%, and 50% uncertainties to the survival factors but explicitly applies them only to the EFT interpretation, not to the cross-section measurement. Since there is no proton tagging to validate the composition, the quoted central value and its uncertainty are conditional on the generator's dissociation fractions. Please propagate these uncertainties to the inclusive cross section, or alternatively report the result as a model-dependent measurement with the dissociation model stated.
  2. [§7.1, §8, Table 2] There is a direct contradiction between Table 2, which lists 'N_HS tracks correction 3.6' as a cross-section uncertainty, and Section 8, which states 'no uncertainty in the N_HS tracks correction is provided since it is freely floating in the SR with N_tracks=0.' The reader cannot tell whether the 3.6% entry is actually included in the quoted uncertainty or not. This is load-bearing for the systematic budget of the central measurement. Please clarify the text and table so the treatment of this uncertainty is consistent.
  3. [§9.2] The EFT interpretation applies relative event weights computed with the elastic GAMMA-UPC simulation to the semi-dissociative and fully dissociative components, 'assuming the identical EFT effects for the nonelastic components.' This assumption is not validated. The dimension-8 operator amplitudes depend on the photon virtualities and the proton form factors, which differ between elastic and dissociative photon emission. The resulting bias could be non-negligible for the quoted limits. Please provide a cross-check, e.g., by computing the EFT weights using the SuperChic4 structure-function photon fluxes for the dissociative components, or by demonstrating that the elastic weights are insensitive to the photon virtuality range that passes the selection.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§9.1] The text states the signal significance is 'well above 5 standard deviations' but no exact value is given. Since this is a central claim, please provide the observed and expected significance quantitatively.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] Typo: 'accouts' should be 'accounts'.
  3. [§7.1] The phrase '1- mm wide windows' should be '1-mm wide windows'.
  4. [Table 4] The entries for the CP-odd operators such as f̃M1/Λ4 appear with a tilde symbol; for readability, define the notation (e.g., f̃ = CP-odd) in the caption or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: cross sections and EFT limits are derived from a data likelihood against independent SuperChic4/gamma-UPC predictions, with no fitted parameter recycled into the quoted SM values.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its stated claim. The measured inclusive and fiducial cross sections are extracted from a binned maximum-likelihood fit to the pT(e-mu) distribution in the signal and control regions (Sections 6 and 9.1), with the signal strength as the parameter of interest. The SM predictions quoted for comparison, 631 +/- 126 fb and 3.87 +/- 0.77 fb, come from the independent SuperChic4 generator [18], not from the fitted signal strength or from any parameter estimated in the fit. The floating N_tracks=0 weight (Section 7.1) is a nuisance parameter constrained by data, but it is not used to define the predicted cross section; it adjusts background and signal track-veto efficiencies and is explicitly left free in the fit. The EFT limits (Section 9.2) are obtained by one-at-a-time likelihood scans over dimension-8 operator coefficients, with the gamma-UPC generator providing relative per-bin shifts applied as event weights; the signal strength is not floated in those scans, so the limits are not a restatement of the measured cross section. The only significant model dependence is the reliance on SuperChic4 for the elastic/semi-dissociative/fully-dissociative composition and acceptance, with inelastic components about five times the elastic contribution (Section 3). This is an external generator assumption and is acknowledged in the systematic-uncertainty discussion, where survival-factor uncertainties (1%, 10%, 50%) are assigned for the EFT interpretation but not for the cross-section measurement. That is model dependence, not circularity: there is no equation in which a predicted quantity equals a fitted input by construction. Self-citations to prior CMS measurements [1,4] are used for methodology and prior context, but the central observation and cross-section measurement stand on the current data and independent external generators. No circular step can be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. It relies on external generators, transfer factors, and the dimension-8 operator basis from the literature. The free parameters are experimental nuisance parameters constrained by the data; none of them are used to define the standard-model prediction.

free parameters (4)
  • DY background normalization
    Floated in the maximum likelihood fit, correlated between SR and CR; strongly constrained by the CR. Directly affects the background subtraction.
  • Inclusive WW background normalization
    Floated in the fit, correlated between SR and CR; constrained mostly by the CR. Affects the signal extraction because inclusive WW has a similar pT(e-mu) shape.
  • N_tracks=0 event weight correction (N_HS tracks) = 0.91 +/- 0.06 times initial value of 0.60
    Left free in the fit to correct the simulated track multiplicity for zero-track events; pulled to 0.91 times its initial value. Uncertainty in this correction is a leading systematic.
  • OS-to-SS scale factors for nonprompt background
    Measured from data in isolation-inverted regions and used to estimate jet misidentification backgrounds. Their statistical uncertainty is propagated.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption SuperChic4 correctly models the elastic, semi-dissociative, and fully dissociative components of gamma-gamma -> WW and their relative fractions.
    The signal model and inclusive acceptance come from SuperChic4 (Section 3, Section 9.1); no proton tagging validates the dissociation composition in data.
  • domain assumption Dimension-8 EFT reweighting computed with elastic GAMMA-UPC photon fluxes applies identically to nonelastic components.
    Section 9.2 states 'assuming the identical EFT effects for the nonelastic components'. This is a modeling assumption that affects the EFT limits.
  • domain assumption Track-multiplicity corrections derived from Z->mu mu events transfer to the e-mu channel and to diboson backgrounds.
    Section 7.1 derives N_PU and N_HS corrections in the dimuon final state and applies them to e-mu signal and background samples.
  • domain assumption The OS-to-SS reweighting method correctly estimates the nonprompt background and the measured scale factors do not depend on N_tracks.
    Section 7.3 uses same-sign events reweighted by OS-to-SS factors; the paper verifies N_tracks independence but assumes the method captures the full misidentification background.
  • domain assumption The acoplanarity requirement A > 0.015 keeps the gamma-gamma -> WW signal efficiency above 95% while suppressing gamma-gamma -> tau tau.
    Section 5 and Figure 1 rely on simulation to justify this cut; no data-based cross-check of the efficiency is provided.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39432 in / 10131 out tokens · 113216 ms · 2026-08-03T06:53:49.667608+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This analysis presents an observation of the photon-fusion production of W boson pairs using the CMS detector at the LHC. The total cross section of the W$^+$W$^-$ production in photon fusion is measured using proton-proton collision data with an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the CMS detector in 2016$-$2018 at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV. Events are selected in the final state with one isolated electron and one isolated muon, and no additional tracks associated with the electron-muon production vertex. The total and fiducial production cross sections are 643 $^{+82}_{-78}$ fb and 3.96 $^{+0.53}_{-0.51}$ fb, respectively, in agreement with the standard model predictions of 631 $\pm$ 126 fb and 3.87 $\pm$ 0.77 fb. This agreement enables stringent constraints to be imposed on anomalous quartic gauge couplings within a dimension-8 effective field theory framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21574 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Normalized simulated Ntracks (left) and acoplanarity (right) distributions for signal and background processes. The acoplanarity distribution is shown for events with Ntracks = 0. L1 trigger in the region at |η| > 2.0 caused a specific trigger inefficiency. For events containing an electron (a jet) with pT larger than ≈50 GeV (≈100 GeV), in the region 2.5 < |η| < 3.0 the efficiency loss is ≈10–20%, dependi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Observed and predicted p eµ T distributions for events with Ntracks = 0 (SR, left) or 1 ≤ Ntracks ≤ 5 (CR, right), using 2016–2018 data. The distributions are shown after the maxi￾mum likelihood fit to the data (”postfit distributions”). The observed data and their associated Poissonian statistical uncertainty are shown with black markers with vertical error bars. The uncertainty band accouts for all sourc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of p eµ T for the difference between the observed number of events and the expected number of background events (black markers) compared with the SM prefit γγ → W+W− prediction (red line), and γγ → W+W− predictions for five benchmark points with nonzero EFT coefficients. The Poissonian statistical uncertainties associated with the ob￾served data are represented by vertical error bars. The diff… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Summary of observed limits on the fM Wilson coefficients for this analysis and previ￾ous results by the CMS Collaboration [55, 57–60]. The limits are arranged from most sensitive to least sensitive in descending order, with the current result highlighted in red. Horizontal error bars represent the 95% confidence level intervals. In some cases, limits on the Wilson co￾efficients are shown under the assumpti… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of observed limits on the fT Wilson coefficients for this analysis and previ￾ous results by the CMS Collaboration [55–58, 60]. The limits are arranged from most sensitive to least sensitive in descending order, with the current result highlighted in red. Horizontal error bars represent the 95% confidence level intervals. In some cases, limits on the Wilson co￾efficients are shown under the assumpti… 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. Observation of electroweak production of pairs of Z bosons in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    CMS provides first evidence for electroweak ZZjj production in the ℓℓννjj final state with measured cross section 0.37 fb agreeing with SM prediction 0.39 fb at 3.1σ (5.0σ combined), plus limits on anomalous quartic g...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Observation ofγγ→τ τin proton-proton collisions and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of theτlepton

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation ofγγ→τ τin proton-proton collisions and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of theτlepton”,Rept. Prog. Phys.87(2024) 107801,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad6fcb,arXiv:2406.03975

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Exclusiveγγ→µ +µ− production in proton-proton collisions at√s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Exclusiveγγ→µ +µ− production in proton-proton collisions at√s=7 TeV”,JHEP01(2012) 052,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2012)052, arXiv:1111.5536

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Study of exclusive two-photon production of W +W− in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

    CMS Collaboration, “Study of exclusive two-photon production of W +W− in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings”,JHEP 07(2013) 116,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)116,arXiv:1305.5596

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Evidence for exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV”,JHEP08 (2016) 119,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)119,arXiv:1604.04464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Observation of proton-tagged, central (semi)exclusive production of high-mass lepton pairs in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS-TOTEM 16 precision proton spectrometer

    CMS, TOTEM Collaboration, “Observation of proton-tagged, central (semi)exclusive production of high-mass lepton pairs in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS-TOTEM 16 precision proton spectrometer”,JHEP07(2018) 153, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)153,arXiv:1803.04496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Measurement of exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and search for exclusive Higgs boson production in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV using the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of exclusiveγγ→W +W− production and search for exclusive Higgs boson production in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV using the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 032011,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.032011, arXiv:1607.03745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Observation of photon-induced W +W− production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of photon-induced W +W− production in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B816(2021) 136190, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136190,arXiv:2010.04019

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.167352

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.167352 2025

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    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

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    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

  17. [17]

    A new approach to modelling elastic and inelastic photon-initiated production at the LHC: SuperChic 4

    L. A. Harland-Lang, M. Tasevsky, V . A. Khoze, and M. G. Ryskin, “A new approach to modelling elastic and inelastic photon-initiated production at the LHC: SuperChic 4”, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 925,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08455-0, arXiv:2007.12704

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Modeling W +W− production with rapidity gaps at the LHC

    S. Bailey and L. A. Harland-Lang, “Modeling W +W− production with rapidity gaps at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 093010,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.093010, arXiv:2201.08403. References 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    gamma-UPC: automated generation of exclusive photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral proton and nuclear collisions with varying form factors

    H.-S. Shao and D. d’Enterria, “gamma-UPC: automated generation of exclusive photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral proton and nuclear collisions with varying form factors”,JHEP09(2022) 248,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)248, arXiv:2207.03012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    Dimuon and ditau production in photon-photon collisions at next-to-leading order in QED

    H.-S. Shao and D. d’Enterria, “Dimuon and ditau production in photon-photon collisions at next-to-leading order in QED”,JHEP02(2025) 023, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)023,arXiv:2407.13610

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Structure function approach to vector boson scattering in p p collisions

    T. Han, G. Valencia, and S. Willenbrock, “Structure function approach to vector boson scattering in p p collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 3274, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.3274,arXiv:hep-ph/9206246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  24. [24]

    On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy

    O. Mattelaer, “On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 674,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4533-7, arXiv:1607.00763

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    Jet pair production in POWHEG

    S. Alioli et al., “Jet pair production in POWHEG”,JHEP04(2011) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)081,arXiv:1012.3380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO Higgs boson production via gluon fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”,JHEP04(2009) 002, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/002,arXiv:0812.0578

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    Single-top t-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO

    R. Frederix, E. Re, and P . Torrielli, “Single-top t-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO”,JHEP09(2012) 130, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130,arXiv:1207.5391. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    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.https://cds.cern.ch/record/2270046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    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. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2717925

    arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade

    CMS Tracker Group Collaboration, “The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade”,JINST 16(2021) P02027,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/P02027,arXiv:2012.14304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2743740

    arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    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:1007.1727. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples

    R. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”,Comput. Phys. Commun77(1993), no. 2, 219,doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W. https://cds.cern.ch/record/249779

    doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-w 1993

  43. [43]

    Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra

    J. S. Conway, “Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra”, inPHYSTAT 2011, p. 115. 2011.arXiv:1103.0354. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1333496.doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-006.115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s= 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2621960/. References 19

    arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s= 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2676164/

    arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    The RooFit toolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. P . Kirkby, “The RooFit toolkit for data modeling”,eConf(2003) MOLT007,doi:10.1142/9781860948985_0039,arXiv:physics/0306116. C0303241

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  50. [50]

    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

  51. [51]

    Measurement of W ±γdifferential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV and effective field theory constraints

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of W ±γdifferential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV and effective field theory constraints”,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 052003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.052003,arXiv:2111.13948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    W +W− boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “W +W− boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 092001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.092001, arXiv:2009.00119

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets in proton–proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets in proton–proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 43,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7585-7,arXiv:1903.04040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    LHC EFT WG note: Basis for anomalous quartic gauge couplings

    G. Durieux et al., “LHC EFT WG note: Basis for anomalous quartic gauge couplings”, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep.(2025) 6,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.6, arXiv:2411.02483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Measurements of production cross sections of WZ and same-sign WW boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of production cross sections of WZ and same-sign WW boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135710,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135710, arXiv:2005.01173

    arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Measurements of the pp→W ±γγand pp→Zγγcross sections at√s=13 TeV and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the pp→W ±γγand pp→Zγγcross sections at√s=13 TeV and limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings”,JHEP10(2021) 174, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)174,arXiv:2105.12780

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Measurement of the electroweak production of Zγand two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the electroweak production of Zγand two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 072001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.072001, arXiv:2106.11082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Measurement of the electroweak production of Wγin association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the electroweak production of Wγin association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 032017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.032017,arXiv:2212.12592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Search for high-mass exclusiveγγ→WW andγγ→ZZ production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS, TOTEM Collaboration, “Search for high-mass exclusiveγγ→WW andγγ→ZZ production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP07(2023) 229, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)229,arXiv:2211.16320. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Vector boson scattering and anomalous quartic couplings in final states withℓνqq orℓℓqq plus jets using proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Vector boson scattering and anomalous quartic couplings in final states withℓνqq orℓℓqq plus jets using proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”, 2025. arXiv:2510.00118. Submitted to JHEP

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Unitarity constraints on anomalous quartic couplings

    E. d. S. Almeida, O. J. P . ´Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-–Garcia, “Unitarity constraints on anomalous quartic couplings”,Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 11, doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.113003,arXiv:2004.05174. 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020