Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 68 references

This search finds no evidence for excited top quarks decaying to a photon plus a gluon, excluding spin-1/2 masses below 930 GeV and spin-3/2 masses below 1330 GeV at 95% confidence.

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

2026-08-02 21:18 UTC pith:RFW6AEEO

load-bearing objection Solid first search in ttγg with honest null result; limits modest and the γ+jets mistag transfer in the SR window deserves a closer look. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2602.20477 v2 pith:RFW6AEEO submitted 2026-02-24 hep-ex

Search for pair production of heavy resonances in final states with a photon and large-radius jets in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords excited top quarkt*pair productionphoton final statesboosted top taggingjet substructure95% CL limitsproton-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.

The paper reports the first search for pair-produced excited top quarks (t*) in the final state with a top quark pair, a photon, and a gluon, using 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data. It tries to establish whether heavy spin-1/2 or spin-3/2 t* resonances exist by reconstructing a t* candidate mass from the photon and a boosted top-quark jet. No significant excess over the standard-model background is found. The observed (expected) 95% CL lower mass limits are 930 (930) GeV for spin-1/2 and 1330 (1390) GeV for spin-3/2, assuming the t* decays to t+photon 3% of the time and to t+gluon 97%. This matters because it extends resonance searches into a channel where the photon dramatically reduces backgrounds, achieving sensitivity comparable to all-hadronic t*->tg searches.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that pair-produced excited top quarks decaying to a top quark plus a photon and a top quark plus a gluon are not observed in 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data. Reconstructing the t* candidate mass from the photon and a top-tagged large-radius jet, the analysis sees data consistent with the standard-model background except for a local excess of about 2.5 standard deviations at high mass, which is not significant. The resulting 95% CL lower mass limits are 930 GeV for spin-1/2 t* and 1330 GeV for spin-3/2 t*, assuming the benchmark branching fractions of 3% to t+photon and 97% to t+gluon.

What carries the argument

The mass variable m(gamma,j1) combines the photon with the leading top-tagged jet; when two top jets pass the tag, the one with the lower soft-drop mass (a groomed jet mass) is used, giving a correct pairing efficiency of about 50-60%. Top-tagging is performed with ParticleNet, a graph neural network that reads particle-flow candidates inside AK8 jets (distance parameter 0.8) and identifies boosted hadronic top decays with ~82% efficiency and ~0.1% gluon/light-jet mistag rate. The dominant gamma+jets background is estimated from data via a per-jet mistag rate r(pT, mSD): events with zero tagged jets in an application region are reweighted by (1-P)/P with P = product_i (1-r_i), transferring t

Load-bearing premise

The gamma+jets background estimate assumes that each jet's probability of being mistagged as a top quark depends only on that jet's transverse momentum and soft-drop mass, with tagging decisions independent across jets in an event; if correlations or a different jet composition in the signal region break this assumption, the predicted background and the derived mass limits could shift.

What would settle it

A closure test in a gamma+jets-enriched control region with at least two AK8 jets: compare the observed fraction of events with one or more t-tagged jets against the prediction built from the product of per-jet mistag rates measured in a low-purity sample. A disagreement beyond the quoted systematic uncertainties would falsify the background estimate and with it the mass limits.

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

If this is right

  • Spin-1/2 excited top quarks with masses below 930 GeV are excluded at 95% CL in this channel; spin-3/2 below 1330 GeV.
  • The photon-plus-boosted-top channel is a viable, complementary probe of t* pair production, competitive with the all-hadronic ttbar+gg search for spin-1/2 despite the small t*->t gamma branching.
  • The data-driven mistag-rate background method, validated in control regions, yields limits that are stable within the quoted uncertainties.
  • The observed high-mass local deviation of about 2.5 standard deviations motivates a dedicated follow-up with more data but does not constitute evidence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted mass limits are tied to the assumed 3%/97% branching fractions; a smaller radiative branching would weaken them, roughly scaling with the square root of the branching ratio.
  • A direct closure test of the factorized mistag-rate ansatz using events with at least two non-top jets would sharpen confidence in the background model.
  • The same single-photon plus boosted-jet strategy could be applied to other resonance topologies, such as t* -> t Z or W' -> t gamma.

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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The CMS Collaboration presents a search for pair-produced excited top quarks t* decaying to tγ and tg, using 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV pp collision data. Events are selected with one high-pT photon and large-radius jets, with at least one ParticleNet-tagged top-quark jet in the mass window 125 < m_SD < 225 GeV. The t* candidate mass is reconstructed from the photon and the top-tagged jet. The dominant backgrounds are ttγ and γ+jets; the γ+jets background is estimated from data using a per-jet mistag-rate transfer (Eq. 1), and the h→γ background is estimated with a misidentification-rate method. A maximum-likelihood fit to the m_γj1 distribution in the signal region and VR1 yields no significant excess, with a local deviation of about 2.5σ at high mass. Observed (expected) 95% CL lower mass limits are 930 (930) GeV for spin-1/2 and 1330 (1390) GeV for spin-3/2 t*, assuming B(t*→tγ)=3% and B(t*→tg)=97%. This is the first search in the ttγg channel.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper provides the first experimental constraints in the ttγg channel and demonstrates sensitivity competitive with the ttgg channel for spin-1/2 t*, despite the small t*→tγ branching fraction. The analysis is well structured: it uses a data-driven method for the dominant background, includes a closure test in VR2, constrains the γ+jets background with VR1, documents a comprehensive set of systematic uncertainties, and provides tabulated results via HEPData. The central quantities are measured limits, not internal theoretical derivations, so there is no circularity issue. The main concern is that the quoted limits rest on the γ+jets transfer assumption, which is not independently validated in the signal-region soft-drop mass window; this is a load-bearing point that should be addressed before acceptance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (1)] The γ+jets estimate—approximately 45% of the SR background—is built on the assumption that the probability of zero t-tagged AK8 jets factorizes as ∏_i(1−r_i(p_T,m_SD)) with r depending only on jet p_T and m_SD. The paper itself states that the mistag rate 'depends not only on the detector performance, but also on the event topology' (Section 6, fourth paragraph), so the p_T/m_SD-only parameterization is an explicit simplification. The r measurement is performed in a multijet sideband with a photon failing the medium ID, and the similarity of the jet composition to γ+jets is established only in simulation. The 15% normalization uncertainty is motivated by the VR2 closure test, but VR2 is defined by m_SD<125 or >225 GeV, i.e., outside the SR window 125<m_SD<225 GeV, where r is much smaller. VR1 uses the SR window but is included in the final likelihood, so it cannot validate the γ+jets mod
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 8 / Fig. 4] The local significance of ~2.5σ is quoted without a global significance or trials factor. Since the search scans many m_t* hypotheses, please report the global significance of the most discrepant excess, or explicitly state that the quoted local p-value is not corrected for the look-elsewhere effect.
  2. [Section 6] There is a typo in the second paragraph: 'first, the probability...' should be capitalized. Also, the notation in Eq. (1) ('P=P zero t-tagged jets') is awkward and should be made clearer.
  3. [Section 6] The h→γ estimate via the misidentification-rate method is described too tersely to verify the ABCD factorization; in particular, the correlation between σ_iηiη and I_chg is described as 'almost uncorrelated' without a quantitative measure. Since h→γ contributes less than 1% in the SR, this is a clarity issue only.
  4. [Section 3 / Table 1] The comparison with the ttgg search would be more informative if the cross-section order (LO vs NLO) used in the two analyses were stated explicitly, since the signal normalization enters the mass limits.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption labels the distributions as 'background-only postfit' in both SR and VR1. Because VR1 is included in the fit, the agreement in VR1 is not a standalone validation; please label VR1 as a postfit region and reserve 'validation' for VR2, or clarify the distinction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the measurement is data-driven and benchmark-independent.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The central result, a 95% CL exclusion, is obtained by fitting signal-plus-background models to data; the gamma+jets background is estimated from a zero-tagged application region using a mistag rate r measured in an independent multijet-enriched sideband (Section 6), and the transfer is validated in VR1/VR2 with VR1 included as a constraint in the fit. This is a standard data-driven estimate, not an output that is equivalent by construction to a fitted parameter. The t* signal cross sections and branching fractions are adopted from external theory (Ref. [22]); prior CMS searches appear only as context or benchmarks, not as load-bearing inputs. The factorization assumption P = product_i(1-r_i) is an explicit modeling assumption, and the text acknowledges its topology dependence; that is a limitation or uncertainty, not circularity. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. The central limits rest on an external benchmark model for t*, on data-driven background estimates, and on the standard CMS simulation and statistical framework. The only 'free' inputs are the benchmark branching fractions, which the paper explicitly identifies as assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • B(t* -> t gamma) = 0.03
    Chosen benchmark branching fraction from coupling-ratio arguments in Ref [22]; directly scales signal yield and mass exclusions.
  • B(t* -> t g) = 0.97
    Chosen benchmark branching fraction completing the t* decay, also from Ref [22]; the paper explicitly states limits assume this value.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The t* benchmark model (dipole operators for spin-1/2, Rarita-Schwinger for spin-3/2, color-triplet couplings) is correct enough to define signal kinematics and cross sections.
    The signal samples and theory prediction curves are all normalized to this model from Ref [22].
  • domain assumption The gamma+jets mistag transfer in Eq. (1) factorizes over AK8 jets: P(zero t-tagged jets) = product_i (1 - r_i), with r_i dependent only on jet pT and mSD.
    This assumption is essential for translating the zero-tag application region to the signal region and is only partially tested via closure in VR2.
  • domain assumption The ABCD method for h->gamma background relies on sigma_ieta_ieta and I_chg being nearly uncorrelated for nonprompt photons.
    The paper states these variables are 'almost uncorrelated', which is required for the factorizing ABCD estimate.
  • standard math Asymptotic CLs and the Barlow-Beeston lite treatment are valid for the likelihood fit.
    Standard statistical machinery used by CMS; the paper cites the corresponding references.
  • domain assumption GEANT4-based detector simulation and CMS scale-factor corrections reliably model trigger, photon identification, jet energy, and top-tagging efficiencies.
    Signal templates and small backgrounds rely on the full CMS simulation chain, including pileup reweighting and data-to-simulation scale factors.
  • domain assumption The narrow-width approximation is valid for signal generation: a fixed 10 GeV width is much smaller than the experimental mass resolution.
    The paper states this approximation is valid in the considered mass range, following Ref [22].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 38359 in / 10833 out tokens · 116486 ms · 2026-08-02T21:18:45.535998+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search for the pair production of heavy spin-1/2 or spin-3/2 resonances (t$^*$) in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV is presented. Data collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC from 2016 to 2018 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ are used. The analysis targets benchmark signal scenarios where one t$^*$ decays into a top quark (t) and a photon ($\gamma$), and the other into a t quark and a gluon (g), i.e., pp $\to$ t$^*\bar{\mathrm{t}}^*$ $\to$ tt$\gamma$g. All-hadronic final states from the t pair decay chain are selected using jet substructure techniques. The signal is probed as a function of the t$^*$ candidate mass, which is reconstructed using the photon and a top quark candidate jet. No significant deviation from the background-only hypothesis is found. Observed (expected) upper limits on the signal cross section at 95% confidence level are set, excluding masses of spin-1/2 t$^*$ particles below 930 (930) GeV and spin-3/2 t$^*$ particles below 1330 (1390) GeV. This analysis marks the first search for heavy resonances in the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\gamma$g channel. Exploiting the high-energy photon to reduce the backgrounds, this search achieves sensitivity competitive with pp $\to$ t$^*\mathrm{\bar{t}}^*$ $\to$ $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$gg searches for spin-1/2 t$^*$ despite the small expected t$^*$ $\to$ t$\gamma$ branching fraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.20477 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Representative LO Feynman diagram for pair production of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Shape comparison of the mγj 1 distribution for t∗ t ∗ signal events generated at different mt ∗ , for the spin-1/2 (solid) and spin-3/2 (dashed) cases. with masses below 2 TeV in the SR. In events with one t-tagged AK8 jet, there is an ambiguity in the t∗ reconstruction since the selected top quark and photon candidates can originate from different t∗ parents. For events with two t-tagged AK8 jets, the t-t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The photon (left) and j1 (right) pT distributions in SR (upper), VR1 (middle), and VR2 (lower) are presented for data and expected backgrounds. Statistical and systematic uncertain￾ties in the expected background yields are depicted by the hatched bands. Additionally, the simulated signal distributions for spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 t∗ with a mass of 900 GeV are overlaid for comparison, with both samples normal… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The background-only postfit mγj 1 distributions for the SR (left) and VR1 (right) are shown. Notations are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The expected (red solid lines) and the observed (black solid lines) 95% CL upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”,Phys. Lett. B429(1998) 263, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3,arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    Low-energy phenomenology of superstring inspired E(6) models

    J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, “Low-energy phenomenology of superstring inspired E(6) models”,Phys. Rept.183(1989) 193,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90071-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90071-9 1989

  3. [3]

    Discovering the composite Higgs through the decay of a heavy fermion

    N. Vignaroli, “Discovering the composite Higgs through the decay of a heavy fermion”, JHEP07(2012) 158,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)158,arXiv:1204.0468

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    A first top partner hunter’s guide

    A. De Simone, O. Matsedonskyi, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, “A first top partner hunter’s guide”,JHEP04(2013) 004,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2013)004,arXiv:1211.5663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Search for electroweak production of a vector-like T quark using fully hadronic final states

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for electroweak production of a vector-like T quark using fully hadronic final states”,JHEP01(2020) 036,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)036, arXiv:1909.04721. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Search for pair production of vector-like quarks in leptonic final states in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of vector-like quarks in leptonic final states in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2023) 020, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)020,arXiv:2209.07327

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Search for pair production of vector-like quarks in the bW bW channel from proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of vector-like quarks in the bW bW channel from proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B779(2018) 82, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.077,arXiv:1710.01539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Search for production of a single vectorlike quark decaying to tH or tZ in the all-hadronic final state in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for production of a single vectorlike quark decaying to tH or tZ in the all-hadronic final state in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 072012,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.072012,arXiv:2405.05071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Search for single production of a vector-like T quark decaying to a top quark and a Z boson in the final state with jets and missing transverse momentum at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for single production of a vector-like T quark decaying to a top quark and a Z boson in the final state with jets and missing transverse momentum at√s=13 TeV”,JHEP05(2022) 093,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)093, arXiv:2201.02227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Search for singly produced vector-like top partners in multilepton final states with 139 fb−1 of pp collision data at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for singly produced vector-like top partners in multilepton final states with 139 fb−1 of pp collision data at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 112012,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112012, arXiv:2307.07584

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Search for pair-produced vector-like top and bottom partners in events with large missing transverse momentum in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair-produced vector-like top and bottom partners in events with large missing transverse momentum in pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 719,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11790-7, arXiv:2212.05263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for pair-production of vector-like quarks in pp collision events at √s=13 TeV with at least one leptonically decaying Z boson and a third-generation quark with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B843(2023) 138019, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138019,arXiv:2210.15413

    arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Search for a vector-like quark T ′→tH via the diphoton decay mode of the Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for a vector-like quark T ′→tH via the diphoton decay mode of the Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP09(2023) 057, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)057,arXiv:2302.12802

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Beyond the minimal top partner decay

    J. Serra, “Beyond the minimal top partner decay”,JHEP09(2015) 176, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)176,arXiv:1506.05110

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Common exotic decays of top partners

    N. Bizot, G. Cacciapaglia, and T. Flacke, “Common exotic decays of top partners”,JHEP 06(2018) 065,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)065,arXiv:1803.00021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Six top messages of new physics at the LHC

    H. Han et al., “Six top messages of new physics at the LHC”,JHEP10(2019) 008, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)008,arXiv:1812.11286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Signatures of vector-like top partners decaying into new neutral scalar or pseudoscalar bosons

    R. Benbrik et al., “Signatures of vector-like top partners decaying into new neutral scalar or pseudoscalar bosons”,JHEP05(2020) 028,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2020)028, arXiv:1907.05929

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Excited quark and lepton production at hadron colliders

    U. Baur, M. Spira, and P . M. Zerwas, “Excited quark and lepton production at hadron colliders”,Phys. Rev. D42(1989) 815,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.815

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.42.815 1989

  19. [19]

    Search for pair production of excited top quarks in the lepton + jets final state

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of excited top quarks in the lepton + jets final state”,JHEP06(2014) 125,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)125, arXiv:1311.5357. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    Search for pair production of excited top quarks in the lepton + jets final state

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of excited top quarks in the lepton + jets final state”,Phys. Lett. B778(2018) 349,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.049, arXiv:1711.10949

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Search for pair production of heavy particles decaying to a top quark and a gluon in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for pair production of heavy particles decaying to a top quark and a gluon in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 342,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13729-y, arXiv:2410.20601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Shedding light on top partner at the LHC

    H. Alhazmi, J. H. Kim, K. Kong, and I. M. Lewis, “Shedding light on top partner at the LHC”,JHEP01(2019) 139,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)139,arXiv:1808.03649

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    On a theory of particles with half integral spin

    W. Rarita and J. Schwinger, “On a theory of particles with half integral spin”,Phys. Rev. 60(1941) 61,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.60.61

    doi:10.1103/physrev.60.61 1941

  24. [24]

    ParticleNet: jet tagging via particle clouds

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, “ParticleNet: jet tagging via particle clouds”,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 056019,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019,arXiv:1902.08570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    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

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05064 2024

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    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. References 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    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

  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]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    Measurement of the inclusive and differential t tγcross sections in the single-lepton channel and EFT interpretation at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive and differential t tγcross sections in the single-lepton channel and EFT interpretation at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP12(2021) 180, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)180,arXiv:2107.01508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV”,JINST10(2015) P08010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010,arXiv:1502.02702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    FastJet user manual

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    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. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    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

  51. [51]

    Towards an understanding of jet substructure

    M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P . Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”,JHEP09(2013) 029,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029, arXiv:1307.0007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC

    J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P . Salam, “Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 242001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001,arXiv:0802.2470

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    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

  54. [54]

    Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P02027,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/02/P02027,arXiv:1912.03516

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Observation of single-top-quark production in association with a photon using the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of single-top-quark production in association with a photon using the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 181901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.181901,arXiv:2302.01283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    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

  59. [59]

    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

  60. [60]

    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

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,JHEP10(2011) 132,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  63. [63]

    Calibration of the jet mass scale using boosted W bosons and top quarks

    CMS Collaboration, “Calibration of the jet mass scale using boosted W bosons and top quarks”, CMS Detector Performance Note DP-2023-044, 2023

    2023

  64. [64]

    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. References 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples

    R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”,Comput. Phys. Commun.77(1993) 219,doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W

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

  66. [66]

    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

  67. [67]

    Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011

    2011

  68. [68]

    20 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.158368. 20 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria W. Adam , J.W. Andrejkovic, L. Benato , T. Bergauer , M. Dragicevic , C. Giordano , P .S. Hussain , M. Jeitler 2 , N. K...

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.158368 2025