Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 2 cited by

Unfolded soft-drop jet-mass spectra of boosted W bosons yield m_W = 80.83 ± 0.55 GeV, the tightest all-jets result at a hadron collider.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 21:45 UTC pith:CGDTQ7HB

load-bearing objection Solid first unfolded double-differential soft-drop mass spectrum for boosted hadronic W+jets, plus a clean 0.55 GeV all-jets m_W extraction that is new and carefully done.

arxiv 2603.19963 v2 pith:CGDTQ7HB submitted 2026-03-20 hep-ex

Measurement of the jet mass in hadronic decays of boosted W bosons at 13 TeV and extraction of the W boson mass

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 14.70.Fm13.85.Qk12.38.Qk
keywords W boson masssoft-drop groomingboosted jetsjet substructureParticleNetunfolded cross sectionhadronic decaysQCD multijet background
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.

High-momentum W bosons that decay to a quark-antiquark pair appear in the detector as single large-radius jets. Soft-drop grooming removes soft, wide-angle radiation so that the jet mass peaks near the W mass, while a mass-decorrelated substructure tagger separates these two-prong jets from ordinary QCD jets. The analysis unfolds the double-differential cross section in jet transverse momentum and soft-drop mass for the first time, then extracts the W mass from the peak of those distributions. The result, 80.83 ± 0.55 GeV, is the most precise determination of m_W obtained so far from a purely hadronic final state at a hadron collider and supplies a clean, color-disconnected sample for testing parton-shower and hadronization models.

Core claim

After soft-drop grooming and ParticleNet-MD tagging, the unfolded double-differential W+jets cross section as a function of jet p_T and soft-drop mass yields a W-boson mass of 80.83 ± 0.55 GeV—the smallest uncertainty yet achieved from an all-jets final state at a hadron collider.

What carries the argument

Soft-drop jet mass (with z_cut = 0.1, β = 0) combined with a mass-decorrelated ParticleNet tagger and a two-dimensional Bernstein transfer function that extrapolates the QCD multijet background from the tagger-fail to the tagger-pass region.

Load-bearing premise

The residual transfer function that moves the QCD background from the control region into the signal region can be captured by low-order Bernstein polynomials whose free coefficients absorb all residual mass dependence.

What would settle it

If an independent data-driven background estimate that does not rely on the Bernstein residual function produces a statistically inconsistent shift of the unfolded mass peak, the quoted m_W value would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • The double-differential unfolded spectra become a direct benchmark for parton-shower and hadronization models of color-disconnected W → qq′ systems.
  • The same soft-drop + ParticleNet pipeline can be applied to boosted Z and Higgs bosons, enabling parallel mass extractions and calibration of jet-mass scale.
  • At the HL-LHC the identical method is projected to become competitive with leptonic m_W determinations once the statistical sample grows by an order of magnitude.
  • The measured jet-mass peak supplies a data-driven constraint that can be used to calibrate the jet-mass scale in top-quark and new-physics analyses that rely on boosted W tagging.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the W is color-disconnected from the rest of the event, residual discrepancies between data and simulation in the peak region isolate pure non-perturbative hadronization effects more cleanly than in top-quark jets.
  • The same residual-transfer-function technique can be ported to other groomed observables (N-subjettiness, energy-correlation ratios) to test whether the Bernstein description remains adequate.
  • A future joint fit of the soft-drop mass peak with a leptonic m_W measurement could quantify the residual jet-energy-scale bias that currently dominates the all-jets uncertainty.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first unfolded double-differential measurement of the W+jets cross section as a function of large-radius jet p_T and soft-drop mass m_SD for boosted hadronic W decays (p_T > 650 GeV) in 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV CMS data. Soft-drop grooming and mass-decorrelated ParticleNet (primary) and N_2 (cross-check) taggers isolate the two-prong signal from QCD multijet background; the residual background is constrained in situ via a transfer function from the tagger-fail region. Detector effects are unfolded simultaneously with background subtraction in a regularized maximum-likelihood fit. From the particle-level peak region (70 < m_SD < 90 GeV, N_2 < 0.2) a linear template fit yields m_W = 80.83 ± 0.55 GeV (on-shell scheme), stated to be the most precise all-jets result at a hadron collider.

Significance. The work supplies the first particle-level double-differential spectra of groomed jet mass in a color-singlet boosted W sample, a valuable calibration input for jet-substructure modeling and for future HL-LHC all-jets m_W prospects. The extraction itself, while not competitive with leptonic determinations, is carefully documented: response matrix, acceptance, purity, closure tests with independent Pythia/Herwig samples, and a full systematic breakdown (Table 4) are provided. The claim of smallest all-jets uncertainty is factually supported by comparison with earlier SPS/Tevatron results. The analysis is therefore a solid first step that both tests non-perturbative QCD and opens a path for precision measurements in the all-jets channel.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 9] Section 9 and Fig. 9: the text states that only the two peak bins 70 < m_SD < 90 GeV are used for the template fit, yet the figure shows the full spectrum with overlaid m_W templates; a short clarifying sentence would prevent misreading.
  2. [Table 4] Table 4: the impact of the hadronization-model uncertainty on m_W is quoted as only 0.02 GeV while the same source contributes ~12–15 % to the signal-strength modifiers (Table 3). A one-sentence explanation of why the peak-position fit is so insensitive would help the reader.
  3. [Figure 7] Figure 7 caption and body text: the particle-level selection N_2 < 0.2 is applied for the displayed spectra, but the abstract and introduction emphasize the ParticleNet-based result; a brief note that the N_2 cut is used only for the mass extraction would improve consistency.
  4. [Section 6] Section 6, Eq. (8): the orders of the Bernstein polynomials are stated to range from 1–2 (p_T) and 2–6 (ρ_SD) “depending on the data-taking period”; listing the chosen orders per era (or referring to a supplementary table) would aid reproducibility.
  5. A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “mW” vs. “m_W”, occasional missing spaces before units). A final copy-edit pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: unfolded spectra and m_W template fit are independent of the fitted background transfer function and of self-cited calibrations.

full rationale

The paper is a standard experimental measurement. Detector-level m_SD spectra in pass/fail regions are fitted with free Bernstein coefficients a_ij of the residual transfer function r (Eq. 8) solely to subtract QCD multijet background; the resulting background-subtracted yields are then unfolded via a regularized maximum-likelihood fit whose parameters of interest are the particle-level signal-strength modifiers µ_j (Eq. 10). The W-mass extraction (Sec. 9) is a subsequent linear template fit of those unfolded, normalized peak-region (70 < m_SD < 90 GeV) cross sections to independent PYTHIA samples generated at five discrete m_W values; closure tests recover the input mass within uncertainties. Jet-energy and tagging calibrations cite prior CMS work that rests on independent control samples (dijet, γ+jets, Z+jets) and do not enter the mass templates. No equation equates an extracted quantity to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central extraction rests on standard SM matrix elements, conventional soft-drop parameters, a data-driven QCD transfer function whose residual is parametrized by free Bernstein coefficients, and LO PYTHIA templates whose higher-order corrections are argued to be sub-dominant to statistics. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Bernstein residual coefficients a_ij
    Free parameters of the two-dimensional residual function r(p̂_T, hô_SD) that corrects the simulated QCD tagging efficiency; fitted simultaneously with the signal strengths (Sec. 6).
  • Signal-strength modifiers μ_j
    One free scale factor per particle-level (p_T, m_SD) bin; the unfolded cross section is proportional to these fitted values.
  • W-tagging efficiency nuisance θ
    Unconstrained parameter that anti-correlates pass and fail normalizations while conserving total yield (Eq. 9).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Soft-drop grooming with z_cut = 0.1, eta_sd = 0 removes soft wide-angle radiation without biasing the two-prong W mass peak.
    Standard CMS choice (Sec. 4); validated on independent samples but remains an algorithmic assumption.
  • domain assumption The mass-decorrelated ParticleNet-DDT (or N2-DDT) tagger at 5 % QCD efficiency preserves a sufficiently pure two-prong sample that residual mass dependence can be absorbed into the Bernstein residual.
    Sec. 4–5; the DDT construction is designed to flatten the efficiency but is not proven exact.
  • domain assumption LO PYTHIA templates with varied m_W, after NLO QCD+EW reweighting of the overall rate, adequately describe the peak shape for a linear template fit.
    Sec. 9; higher-order shape effects are neglected because statistical uncertainty dominates.
  • domain assumption Detector response matrix obtained from GEANT4 simulation plus residual data-driven corrections is invertible under Tikhonov regularization without large bias.
    Sec. 8; closure tests support it, but the matrix itself is simulation-derived.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 50707 in / 2545 out tokens · 37212 ms · 2026-07-13T21:45:06.936050+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The jet mass of W bosons decaying to a quark-antiquark pair is measured in W+jets events from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data used were collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Hadronic decays of W bosons with high momenta produce strongly collimated decay products due to the large Lorentz boost, and are reconstructed as single large-radius jets. These jets have a characteristic substructure that is exploited to distinguish them from the large background of quark- and gluon-initiated jets. The jet mass is computed using the soft-drop algorithm, which suppresses soft wide-angle radiation that leads to a broadening of the jet mass distribution. For the first time, unfolded measurements are presented of the double-differential W+jets cross section as a function of the jet transverse momentum and soft-drop mass. From these distributions, the W boson mass is obtained, with a value of 80.83 $\pm$ 0.55 GeV, achieving the smallest uncertainty available today from an all-jets final state at a hadron collider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.19963 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagram for tree-level W(qq ′ )+jets production. An example Feynman diagram of a boosted W(qq ′ )+jets event is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Acceptance as a function of m ptcl SD without (left) and with (right) the requirement N (1) 2 < 0.2 at the particle level. The acceptance is calculated using the W(qq ′ )+jets signal simulation with 2018 detector conditions. a low acceptance of 5–20%, especially in the first and last p ptcl T bins. The central m ptcl SD bins in the W boson mass peak region have a much larger acceptance of 30–70%. When incl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reconstructed mSD distributions in the second pT bin with 650 < pT < 725 GeV in the signal (upper row) and control (lower row) regions defined using the N (1),DDT 2 (left) and P PN,DDT Wvs.QCD (right) taggers after the background estimation and a fit to the data, explained in Sec￾tion 6. All four data-taking periods are combined, resulting in a total integrated luminosity of 138 fb−1 . The lower panels sho… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residual function r(pˆT , ρˆSD) obtained from a fit to data, when using the P PN,DDT Wvs.QCD as jet tagger. The arguments of the function r, pˆT and ρˆSD are functions of mSD and pT and correspond to the normalized observables pT and ρSD, scaled to lie in the interval [0, 1]. The hatched area is excluded from the analyses by selecting ρSD < −2.1. 7 Systematic uncertainties The measurement of the differenti… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of the effect of the systematic uncertainties in the reconstructed SD jet mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Response matrix obtained for selected events in simulation. The matrix is obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Unfolded and background subtracted jet mass distribution at the particle level for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation matrix of the maximum likelihood estimators of the signal strength mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Unfolded and background subtracted jet mass distribution at the particle level for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. High-$p_{\rm T}$ physics and jet production

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Conference summary of high-pT jet production measurements testing pQCD, PDFs and the strong coupling at hadron colliders.

  2. Standard Model W, Z (+jet) at CMS and ATLAS

    hep-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review summarizing precision measurements of Standard Model W and Z boson production and decays from ATLAS and CMS collaborations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Electroweak measurements in electron-positron collisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group, “Electroweak measurements in electron-positron collisions at W-boson-pair energies at LEP”,Phys. Rept.532(2013) 119, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.07.004,arXiv:1302.3415

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.07.004 2013

  2. [2]

    Measurement of the W boson mass with the D0 detector

    D0 Collaboration, “Measurement of the W boson mass with the D0 detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 151804,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.151804, arXiv:1203.0293

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.151804 2012

  3. [3]

    High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector

    CDF Collaboration, “High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CDF II detector”,Science376(2022) 170,doi:10.1126/science.abk1781

    doi:10.1126/science.abk1781 2022

  4. [4]

    Measurement of the W-boson mass in pp collisions at√s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the W-boson mass in pp collisions at√s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 110, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5475-4,arXiv:1701.07240. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6354-3]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5475-4 2018

  5. [5]

    Measurement of the W boson mass

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the W boson mass”,JHEP01(2022) 036, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2022)036,arXiv:2109.01113

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2022)036 2022

  6. [6]

    Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at √s=7 TeV

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the W-boson mass and width with the ATLAS detector using proton-proton collisions at √s=7 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1309, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13190-x,arXiv:2403.15085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13190-x 2024

  7. [7]

    High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, 2024.arXiv:2412.13872. Submitted toNature

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001. References 23

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  9. [9]

    Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology

    S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and M. Spannowsky, “Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology”, volume 958. Springer, 2019. ISBN 978-3-030-15708-1.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15709-8

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15709-8 2019

  10. [10]

    Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A review of recent advances in theory and machine learning

    A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and B. Nachman, “Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A review of recent advances in theory and machine learning”,Phys. Rept.841(2020) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.11.001,arXiv:1709.04464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.11.001 2020

  11. [11]

    Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider

    R. Kogler et al., “Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider”,Rev. Mod. Phys.91 (2019) 045003,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.045003,arXiv:1803.06991

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.045003 2019

  12. [12]

    Advances in jet substructure at the LHC: Algorithms, measurements and searches for new physical phenomena

    R. Kogler, “Advances in jet substructure at the LHC: Algorithms, measurements and searches for new physical phenomena”. Springer Cham, 2021. ISBN 978-3-030-72858-8. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72858-8

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-72858-8 2021

  13. [13]

    Search for decays of the W ± and Z bosons into quark-anti-quark pairs

    UA2 Collaboration, “Search for decays of the W ± and Z bosons into quark-anti-quark pairs”,Phys. Lett. B186(1987) 452,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90325-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90325-x 1987

  14. [14]

    Observation of Hadronic W Decays in t-tbar Events with the Collider Detector at Fermilab

    CDF Collaboration, “Observation of hadronic W decays int ¯tevents with the Collider Detector at Fermilab”,Phys. Rev. Lett.80(1998) 5720, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5720,arXiv:hep-ex/9711004

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.5720 1998

  15. [15]

    Prospects for a measurement of the $W$ boson mass in the all-jets final state at hadron colliders

    M. Freytsis et al., “Prospects for a measurement of the W boson mass in the all-jets final state at hadron colliders”,JHEP02(2019) 003,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)003, arXiv:1807.07454

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)003 2019

  16. [16]

    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 doi:10.1007/jhep09(2013)029 2013

  17. [17]

    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 doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.242001 2008

  18. [18]

    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 doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)146 2014

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    Jet mass and substructure of inclusive jets in sqrt(s) = 7 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS experiment

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Jet mass and substructure of inclusive jets in √s=7 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS experiment”,JHEP05(2012) 128, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2012)128,arXiv:1203.4606

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2012)128 2012

  21. [21]

    A measurement of the soft-drop jet mass in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the soft-drop jet mass in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 092001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.092001,arXiv:1711.08341

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.092001 2018

  22. [22]

    Measurements of the differential jet cross section as a function of the jet mass in dijet events from proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the differential jet cross section as a function of the jet mass in dijet events from proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP11 (2018) 113,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)113,arXiv:1807.05974

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)113 2018

  23. [23]

    Measurement of the jet mass in highly boosted t t-bar events from pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the jet mass in highly boosted t t events from pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 467, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5030-3,arXiv:1703.06330. 24

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5030-3 2017

  24. [24]

    Measurement of the jet mass distribution and top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the jet mass distribution and top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(2020) 202001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.202001,arXiv:1911.03800

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.202001 2020

  25. [25]

    Measurement of the differential $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross section as a function of the jet mass and extraction of the top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential t t production cross section as a function of the jet mass and extraction of the top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 560, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11587-8,arXiv:2211.01456

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11587-8 2023

  26. [26]

    Measurement of the jet mass in high transverse momentum Z(→b b)γproduction at √s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the jet mass in high transverse momentum Z(→b b)γproduction at √s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B812 (2021) 135991,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135991,arXiv:1907.07093

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135991 2021

  27. [27]

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

  28. [28]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/p10009 2014

  29. [29]

    The CMS Phase-1 Pixel Detector Upgrade

    CMS Tracker Group, “The CMS Phase-1 pixel detector upgrade”,JINST16(2021) P02027,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/P02027,arXiv:2012.14304

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/p02027 2021

  30. [30]

    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 Note CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020

    2017

  31. [31]

    2017 tracking performance plots

    CMS Collaboration, “2017 tracking performance plots”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2017-015, 2017

    2017

  32. [32]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10017 2020

  33. [33]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017

  34. [34]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/p11021 2024

  35. [35]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/p10003 2017

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/p05014 2021

  38. [38]

    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. References 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/p09018 2020

  39. [39]

    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 doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)059 2014

  40. [40]

    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 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 2008

  41. [41]

    FASTJETuser manual

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012

  42. [42]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/p02014 2017

  43. [43]

    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 doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

  44. [44]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3”, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21468/scipostphyscodeb.8 2022

  45. [45]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 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 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4 2020

  46. [46]

    Parton fragmentation and string dynamics

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sj ¨ostrand, “Parton fragmentation and string dynamics”,Phys. Rept.97(1983) 31,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(83)90080-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(83)90080-7 1983

  47. [47]

    The merging of jets

    T. Sj ¨ostrand, “The merging of jets”,Phys. Lett. B142(1984) 420, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91354-6

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91354-6 1984

  48. [48]

    Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions

    J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,Eur. Phys. J. C53(2008) 473, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5,arXiv:0706.2569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5 2008

  49. [49]

    HERWIG7.0/HERWIG++ 3.0 release note

    J. Bellm et al., “HERWIG7.0/HERWIG++ 3.0 release note”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 196, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4018-8,arXiv:1512.01178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4018-8 2016

  50. [50]

    Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Development and validation ofHERWIG7 tunes from CMS underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 312, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08949-5,arXiv:2011.03422

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08949-5 2021

  51. [51]

    Merging meets matching inMC@NLO

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2012)061 2012

  52. [52]

    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 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040 2004

  53. [53]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 2007

  54. [54]

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

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: thePOWHEG BOX”,JHEP06(2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043,arXiv:1002.2581. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2010)043 2010

  55. [55]

    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 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126 2007

  56. [56]

    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 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 2017

  57. [57]

    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

  58. [58]

    Search for Higgs boson and observation of Z boson through their decay into a charm quark-antiquark pair in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for boosted Higgs boson decay to a charm quark-antiquark pair in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 041801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041801,arXiv:2211.14181

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.041801 2023

  59. [59]

    Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1 2017

  60. [60]

    Measurement of normalized differential t t cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of normalized differential t t cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP04(2018) 060, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2018)060,arXiv:1708.07638

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep04(2018)060 2018

  61. [61]

    Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 092001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.092001,arXiv:1610.04191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.092001 2017

  62. [62]

    Better jet clustering algorithms

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”,JHEP08(1997) 001,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001 1997

  63. [63]

    Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques”,JINST15(2020) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/06/P06005,arXiv:2004.08262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/06/p06005 2020

  64. [64]

    New angles on energy correlation functions

    I. Moult, L. Necib, and J. Thaler, “New angles on energy correlation functions”,JHEP12 (2016) 153,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)153,arXiv:1609.07483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2016)153 2016

  65. [65]

    Energy correlation functions for jet substructure

    A. J. Larkoski, G. P . Salam, and J. Thaler, “Energy correlation functions for jet substructure”,JHEP06(2013) 108,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)108, arXiv:1305.0007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)108 2013

  66. [66]

    Jet tagging via particle clouds

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.056019 2020

  67. [67]

    Dynamic graph CNN for learning on point clouds

    Y. Wang et al., “Dynamic graph CNN for learning on point clouds”,ACM T rans. Graph. 38(2019) 12,doi:10.1145/3326362,arXiv:1801.07829

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1145/3326362 2019

  68. [68]

    Identification of highly Lorentz-boosted heavy particles using graph neural networks and new mass decorrelation techniques

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of highly Lorentz-boosted heavy particles using graph neural networks and new mass decorrelation techniques”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2020-002, 2020

    2020

  69. [69]

    Thinking outside the ROCs: Designing decorrelated taggers (DDT) for jet substructure

    J. Dolen et al., “Thinking outside the ROCs: Designing decorrelated taggers (DDT) for jet substructure”,JHEP05(2016) 156,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)156, arXiv:1603.00027. References 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2016)156 2016

  70. [70]

    Search for low mass vector resonances decaying into quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for low mass vector resonances decaying into quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 112007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.112007,arXiv:1909.04114

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.112007 2019

  71. [71]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015 2018

  72. [72]

    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 doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4 2024

  73. [73]

    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 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2 2015

  74. [74]

    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

  75. [75]

    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

  76. [76]

    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 doi:10.1007/jhep07(2018)161 2018

  77. [77]

    Giant QCD K-factors beyond NLO

    M. Rubin, G. P . Salam, and S. Sapeta, “Giant QCD K-factors beyond NLO”,JHEP09 (2010) 084,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)084,arXiv:1006.2144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2010)084 2010

  78. [78]

    TUNFOLD, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics

    S. Schmitt, “TUNFOLD, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics”,JINST7(2012) T10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/T10003, arXiv:1205.6201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/t10003 2012

  79. [79]

    Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method

    A. N. Tikhonov, “Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method”,Soviet Math. Dokl.4(1963) 1035

    1963

  80. [80]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.169182

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.169182 2026

Showing first 80 references.