Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 1 cited by

A dedicated search for highly Lorentz-boosted Higgs bosons decaying to W boson pairs finds no excess over background, with the measured signal strength at −0.19 +0.48/−0.46 times the standard-model expectation.

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

2026-08-04 05:41 UTC pith:6VOCG6HS

load-bearing objection A solid, first-of-its-kind null search for boosted H→WW; the analysis is careful, the main risk is the 0ℓ background transfer function, and the VH top normalization deserves a hard look.

arxiv 2603.22233 v2 pith:6VOCG6HS submitted 2026-03-23 hep-ex

Search for Higgs boson production at high transverse momentum in the WW decay channel in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Higgs bosonWW decayboosted regimejet substructuretransformer taggerLund jet planesignal strengthsimplified template cross sections
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 aims to measure Higgs boson production at large transverse momentum in the WW decay channel, a regime that had not been isolated in this final state before. Because the two W bosons merge into a single wide jet, the search identifies candidate jets with a transformer-based jet tagger, calibrates the tagger with Lund-jet-plane reweighting, and looks for a signal bump in the reconstructed jet-mass spectrum. Using 138 inverse femtobarns of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions, the authors find a best-fit signal strength of −0.19 +0.48/−0.46 relative to the standard model, with an observed significance of 0.0 sigma against an expected 1.86 sigma. In plain terms, the data are fully compatible with background alone, and the paper presents the first dedicated constraint on boosted H to WW production, along with unfolded cross-section measurements for direct theory comparison.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the high-transverse-momentum regime where both W bosons fit inside a single large-radius jet, the H to WW production rate is consistent with the standard-model background prediction. The combined fit to the 0-lepton and 1-lepton channels gives a signal strength of −0.19 +0.48/−0.46, corresponding to an observed significance of 0.0 sigma and an expected significance of 1.86 sigma; when negative signal strengths are allowed, the observed result lies 2.1 standard deviations below the standard-model expectation. The paper thus establishes that no excess of boosted H to WW events appears in the data, and interprets the measurement as the first dedicated study of this

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single large-radius jet that contains the merged decay products of the two W bosons. To recognize the H to WW substructure, the analysis uses PART, a transformer-based self-attention tagger that classifies jets into categories by quark flavor and prong multiplicity; in the 1-lepton channel the tagger is fine-tuned on the lepton-in-jet topology. Signal efficiency is calibrated with Lund-jet-plane reweighting, which rescales simulated jet-splitting densities using W-to-qq data. For semileptonic decays, the candidate mass is reconstructed by adding the missing transverse momentum to the jet under the assumption that the neutrino is collinear with the jet. The domi

Load-bearing premise

The 0-lepton result assumes that the QCD multijet background shape in the signal regions is a smooth, low-order polynomial rescaling of the control-region shape, with no sharp or non-monotonic features near 125 GeV that the fitted transfer functions cannot capture.

What would settle it

In the public data release, compare the post-fit background prediction with the observed data in the 110–140 GeV window of each 0-lepton signal region, and repeat the combined fit with the Bernstein polynomial order increased by one: if a systematic residual appears in several bins around 125 GeV, or if the signal strength shifts by more than roughly 0.3 relative to the published value, the background-only conclusion would not be robust.

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

If this is right

  • The measurement places the first dedicated constraint on boosted H to WW production; even without an excess, it demonstrates the channel's sensitivity and provides a benchmark for future searches in this topology.
  • The unfolded simplified-template cross sections in the gluon-fusion transverse-momentum bins and the vector-boson-fusion mass bin give generator-level comparisons for higher-order QCD predictions, which are especially uncertain in the boosted regime.
  • The transfer-learning recipe—pre-training a broad jet classifier, then fine-tuning on the narrow lepton-in-jet topology—yields roughly 60% higher signal efficiency at 1% background efficiency, a gain that directly improves the search's expected significance.
  • The 0-lepton channel's data-driven background method shows that fully hadronic and non-isolated-lepton WW decays can be included in a boosted-Higgs search, extending coverage beyond the single-isolated-lepton topology.
  • The use of the common simplified-template phase-space binning allows this measurement to be combined with other boosted Higgs channels and other decay modes in a joint high-transverse-momentum cross-section extraction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not stress it, but the negative central signal strength, while consistent with background, is also consistent with a mild suppression of the Higgs rate at high transverse momentum; combining this channel with existing boosted H to bb, tau tau, and gamma gamma measurements in a common fit would sharpen that test.
  • The neutrino-collinear mass correction assumes the neutrino shares the jet's pseudorapidity; a closure study in semileptonic top-quark events, where the neutrino momentum can be constrained, would directly quantify any bias in the reconstructed Higgs mass peak near 125 GeV. The paper does not report such a dedicated test.
  • The Bernstein transfer functions are fit with unconstrained coefficients in the signal regions, so their fitted shapes can partially absorb smooth data fluctuations near the Higgs mass; an independent background estimate using a high-score sideband in data, rather than a polynomial extrapolation, would be a useful cross-check of the 0-lepton result.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same fine-tuned tagger and calibration procedure to the larger dataset now being collected; with more luminosity the expected 1.86 sigma sensitivity would grow, and the currently inclusive 0-lepton channel could be split by production process.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a search for highly Lorentz-boosted Higgs boson production in the H→WW decay channel using 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by CMS. Events are classified into a 0-lepton channel (fully hadronic and semileptonic WW decays with nonisolated leptons) and a 1-lepton channel (semileptonic WW decays with an isolated lepton). The Higgs boson is reconstructed as a single large-radius jet, identified with the transformer-based PART tagger, with a fine-tuned variant for the 1-lepton channel and Lund-jet-plane reweighting for signal-efficiency calibration. Backgrounds are estimated via data-driven transfer functions for QCD multijet events in the 0-lepton channel and via simulation with control-region normalizations in the 1-lepton channel. The combined signal strength relative to the standard model expectation is μ = -0.19 +0.48/-0.46, giving no evidence of a signal; the expected significance is 1.86σ and the observed significance is 0.0σ. Results are also presented as simplified template cross sections.

Significance. If correct, this is the first dedicated measurement of highly boosted H→WW production, extending differential Higgs measurements at high transverse momentum to a previously unexplored final state. The analysis is carefully executed: the systematic uncertainty tables are detailed (Table 3), the LJP calibration uncertainty is decomposed into statistical, modeling, and extrapolation components, and the background estimates are cross-checked in data. The paper is honest in reporting a null result and the low expected sensitivity of the 0-lepton channel. The HEPData record supports future combinations. The central null result is robust to plausible uncertainties in the 0-lepton QCD background model because that channel contributes only 0.36σ to the expected combined significance; the 1-lepton channels drive the sensitivity.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 6.2.1, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The notation 'TFia' is undefined and potentially confusing: clarify that the a-type transfer function is shared between TF1a and TF2a, while TF1b and TF2b are independent. In addition, because the transfer-function coefficients are unconstrained and fitted simultaneously with the signal, please state whether any signal-injection closure test was performed to check that the Bernstein polynomial cannot absorb a narrow H→WW peak near 125 GeV. The current text relies on the post-fit pulls and on the Fisher F-test, but a direct statement of the closure would strengthen the dominant 0-lepton systematic.
  2. [Section 5, LJP calibration] The extrapolation of LJP corrections measured on W→qq decays in data to 3- and 4-prong H→WW signal jets is a core assumption of the signal-efficiency calibration. The tt validation is described, but the paper should explicitly discuss the expected size of non-universality effects (e.g., color connection, subjet matching, or quark flavor) and justify that the quoted 9–27% uncertainty envelope covers these effects.
  3. [Section 9] The statement that the observed result lies 2.1 standard deviations below the SM expectation should define the test statistic used (e.g., sqrt(t_1) with the uncapped negative-μhat region) and should be reconciled with the quoted asymmetric uncertainty of μ = -0.19 +0.48/-0.46. As written, this claim is easy to misinterpret and should be clarified or softened.
  4. [Section 3] The sentence 'Parton showering, fragmentation, and hadronization are modeled with PYTHIA8.230 ...' appears twice in Section 3. Also, the statement that electroweak V+2j production corresponds to O(alpha_S^4) seems inconsistent with an electroweak process; please check the coupling order.
  5. [Table 4] The multi-level column headers for signal strength and significance are difficult to parse. Consider splitting the observed/expected signal strength and the observed/expected significance into separate tables or using clearer column spans.
  6. [Section 7.1] When more than one AK8 jet satisfies P(H1l)>0.75, the H-candidate jet is not uniquely defined. Please state the selection rule explicitly (presumably the jet with the highest PART score or the one closest to the lepton).
  7. [Introduction] The claim that this is the 'first dedicated study' of highly Lorentz-boosted H→WW decays should be substantiated with a brief statement confirming the absence of prior dedicated measurements in this exact final state, since the cited differential H→WW measurement [15] does not use the single-jet topology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the signal extraction is a direct likelihood fit to data with external signal templates and data-driven backgrounds.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, mu = -0.19 +0.48/-0.46, is obtained from a binned maximum-likelihood fit in which the signal templates come from SM simulation normalized to published cross sections, not from the data being fitted. The PART tagger is calibrated using Lund jet plane reweighting corrections measured in W->qq data (Ref. [89]), and its residual uncertainties are propagated as nuisance parameters; this is independent of the H->WW signal hypothesis. The 0-lepton QCD multijet background uses Eq. (1), N_SR = N_CR * TF, where the Bernstein polynomial coefficients are treated as unconstrained profiled nuisance parameters determined in the fit. While this means the background shape is not fully independent of the signal region, it is an explicit background-modeling choice with the associated uncertainty quoted as the dominant 0l systematic, not a circular prediction: the coefficients are not defined by the signal strength, and the signal is extracted as a resonance on top of a flexible smooth background. Self-citations such as Refs. [29] and [89] document tagger performance and the calibration method, but the central result does not reduce to an unverified self-citation; the measurement is a direct fit to collision data with externally calibrated inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited under the required standard, and the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. PART-FINETUNED is a new machine-learning model rather than a ledger entity; it is validated on simulated samples and data control regions. The analysis relies on standard CMS detector simulation, SM Monte Carlo, and data-driven background assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • Signal strength mu (combined) = -0.19 +0.48/-0.46
    Parameter of interest in the binned maximum likelihood fit; it is the measurement output, not a hidden input.
  • QCD transfer-function Bernstein coefficients a_l (0l channel) = Not quoted; TF degree 3 for SR1a/SR2a and degree 6 for SR1b/SR2b
    Eq. (2): polynomial coefficients are unconstrained nuisance parameters fitted to CR and SR data to map the m*_j shape from control regions to signal regions.
  • W(lv)+jets normalization scale factor (1l channel) = 0.89 +0.13/-0.12
    Floating normalization constrained by the W+jets control region (Section 7.2.2).
  • Top-quark normalization scale factors (1l channel) = 0.97 +0.17/-0.14 (ggF/VBF), 2.01 +0.38/-0.31 (VH)
    Floating normalizations from the top control regions; an extra 20% uncertainty is assigned for the VBF sideband.
  • LJP signal-efficiency scale factors = 0.84-0.98 (central)
    Measured data-to-simulation Lund-jet-plane density ratios applied to H->WW signal jets; the dominant uncertainty is 9-27% (Section 8).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Standard Model Higgs production cross sections and branching fractions from the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group [32] are correct.
    Signal predictions are normalized to these values; mu = 1 corresponds to the SM expectation.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo event generators (POWHEG, MadGraph, Sherpa, PYTHIA) plus GEANT4 detector simulation accurately model data after the applied corrections.
    All signal and most background templates rely on simulation, with data-driven corrections only for selected components.
  • ad hoc to paper The QCD multijet background shape in the 0l signal regions is a smooth low-order Bernstein polynomial extrapolated from control regions with P(H0l) < 0.92.
    Eqs. (1)-(2) and Section 6.2.1: if the true background has structure near 125 GeV not captured by the polynomial, the mu measurement is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Lund-jet-plane reweighting corrections measured on W->qq subjets in data apply to H->WW signal jets with two, three, or four quark prongs.
    Section 5 and Section 8: used to calibrate the PART tagger efficiency for H->WW signal; assumes universality of splitting-function corrections across jet topologies.
  • domain assumption For the 1l signal, the neutrino is collinear with the H-candidate jet axis (eta_nu = eta_j) and p_miss is due solely to the neutrino.
    End of Section 5: used to reconstruct m*_j; reasonable for highly boosted Higgs bosons but approximate.
  • domain assumption Control regions used to constrain W+jets and top backgrounds contain negligible signal contamination.
    Section 7.2.2: if signal leaked into the CRs, floating normalizations would partially absorb the signal and bias the measured mu.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 50568 in / 16793 out tokens · 180031 ms · 2026-08-04T05:41:48.030154+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search for Higgs boson (H) production at high transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) in the WW decay channel is presented. The analysis uses proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded by the CMS experiment in 2016$-$2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The visible decay products of the Higgs boson are reconstructed as a single large-radius jet with one isolated lepton or none (1$\ell$ and 0$\ell$, respectively; $\ell$ = e, $\mu$). The H-candidate jets are identified using an advanced transformer-based algorithm and are calibrated with the Lund jet plane reweighting technique. The 1$\ell$ channel is further split into gluon fusion, vector boson fusion, and associated production with hadronically decaying vector boson categories, while the 0$\ell$ channel considers all production processes inclusively. The measured cross section times the H $\to$ WW branching fraction relative to the standard model expectation is $\mu$ = $-$0.19 $^{+0.48}_{-0.46}$, indicating no evidence of a signal above the background. This measurement represents the first dedicated study of highly Lorentz-boosted H $\to$ WW decays, complementing earlier searches for high-$p_\mathrm{T}$ Higgs boson in other decay channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.22233 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the event topologies analyzed. Right: boosted Higgs boson final states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance curves showing the identification probability of background jets versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distributions for the total simulated background and total signal (scaled by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the SRs and CRs, and the TFs used to relate the QCD background in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Post-fit m∗ j distributions in the 0ℓ channel, showing the predicted background with total uncertainty, observed data, and the expected pre-fit signal scaled by the labeled strength µ. From left to right, upper to lower, the plots correspond to SR1a, SR2a, SR1b, and SR2b. The lower panel of each plot presents the pull distribution, as well as the σfit normalized to the σstat. and VBF) SRs and CRs, and the … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Post-fit m∗ j distributions in the 1ℓ channel, showing the predicted background with total uncertainty, observed data, and the expected pre-fit signal scaled by the labeled strength µ. Left to right and upper to lower: Top CR, W+jets CR, VBF SR, and the ggF SRs binned in pT as [250, 350), [350, 500), and [500, +∞) GeV, respectively. The lower panel of each plot presents the pull distribution, as well as σf… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Post-fit m V j distributions in the VH channel, showing the predicted background with total uncertainty, observed data, and expected signal, split by production process. Left to right: VH SR and VH Top CR. The lower panel of each plot presents the pull distribution, as well as σfit normalized to the σstat. The predicted pre-fit signal is scaled for visibility. To estimate the signal significance, we use th… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observed scan of the profile likelihood test statistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observed and expected signal strength (left) and significance (right) for H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Unfolded measurement of the STXS cross sections in generator-level bins for three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Particle-Lund Multimodality in Jet Taggers

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PLuM multimodal transformer improves top and H->bb jet tagging by jointly processing particle constituents and Lund plane splittings, yielding 25% higher background rejection at 25% di-Higgs efficiency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery

    G. Aad et al., “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 52, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w,arXiv:2207.00092. [Erratum: doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06248-5]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery

    CMS Collaboration, “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 60,doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x, arXiv:2207.00043. [Corrigendum:doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Precise predictions for boosted Higgs production

    K. Becker et al., “Precise predictions for boosted Higgs production”,SciPost Phys. Core 7(2024) 001,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCore.7.1.001,arXiv:2005.07762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Very boosted Higgs in gluon fusion

    C. Grojean, E. Salvioni, M. Schlaffer, and A. Weiler, “Very boosted Higgs in gluon fusion”,JHEP05(2014) 22,doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)022,arXiv:1312.3317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Boosted Higgs shapes

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  9. [9]

    Usefulness of effective field theory for boosted Higgs production

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

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

    M. Grazzini, A. Ilnicka, M. Spira, and M. Wiesemann, “Modeling BSM effects on the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in an EFT approach”,JHEP03(2017) 115, doi:10.1007/jhep03(2017)115,arXiv:1612.00283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Measurement and interpretation of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement and interpretation of differential cross sections for Higgs boson production at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B792(2019) 369, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.059,arXiv:1812.06504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Measurement of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial production cross sections in the diphoton decay channel with pp collisions at√s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2023) 091,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)091, arXiv:2208.12279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the leptonic WW decay mode at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the leptonic WW decay mode at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP03 (2021) 003,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)003,arXiv:2007.01984

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the decay mode to a pair ofτleptons in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive and differential Higgs boson production cross sections in the decay mode to a pair ofτleptons in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 081805, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.081805,arXiv:2107.11486

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Measurements of inclusive and differential cross sections for the Higgs boson production and decay to four-leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive and differential cross sections for the Higgs boson production and decay to four-leptons in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,JHEP08(2023) 040,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2023)040, arXiv:2305.07532

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Inclusive search for a highly boosted Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair

    CMS Collaboration, “Inclusive search for a highly boosted Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair”,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 071802, doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.071802,arXiv:1709.05543

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Inclusive search for highly boosted Higgs bosons decaying to bottom quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP12 (2020) 085,doi:10.1007/jhep12(2020)085,arXiv:2006.13251. References 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for a boosted Higgs boson decaying to bottom quark pairs in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, 2026. arXiv:2601.05362. Submitted toPhys. Lett. B

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Measurement of the production cross section of a Higgs boson with large transverse momentum in its decays to a pair ofτleptons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the production cross section of a Higgs boson with large transverse momentum in its decays to a pair ofτleptons in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B857(2024) 138964, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138964,arXiv:2403.20201

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    Particle transformer for jet tagging

    H. Qu, C. Li, and S. Qian, “Particle transformer for jet tagging”, inProc. 39th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, K. Chaudhuri et al., eds., volume 162, p. 18281. 2022. arXiv:2202.03772

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Attention is all you need

    A. Vaswani et al., “Attention is all you need”, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon et al., eds., volume 30. 2017.arXiv:1706.03762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Particle transformers for identifying Lorentz-boosted Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of W bosons

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle transformers for identifying Lorentz-boosted Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of W bosons”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-25-001, 2025

    2025

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    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 2020

  32. [32]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”,CERN Y ellow Rep. Monogr.2(2017) doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002,arXiv:1610.07922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Simplified template cross sections — Stage 1.1 and 1.2

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Simplified template cross sections — Stage 1.1 and 1.2”, Public Note LHCHWG-INT-2025-001, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.167419. 28

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.167419 2026

  35. [35]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  36. [36]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017,arXiv:2006.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/P11021, arXiv:2410.17038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    Merging H/W/Z + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with no merging scale: a path to parton shower + NNLO matching

    K. Hamilton, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and G. Zanderighi, “Merging H/W/Z + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with no merging scale: a path to parton shower + NNLO matching”,JHEP05 (2013) 082,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2013)082,arXiv:1212.4504

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  45. [45]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [46]

    HW±/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with thePOWHEG BOXinterfaced to GOSAMand their merging within MINLO

    G. Luisoni, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano, “HW±/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with thePOWHEG BOXinterfaced to GOSAMand their merging within MINLO”,JHEP 10(2013) 083,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)083,arXiv:1306.2542

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in thePOWHEG BOX

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    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. References 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC

    S. Bolognesi et al., “On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 095031,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095031, arXiv:1208.4018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction toPYTHIA8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    Event generation withSHERPA1.1

    T. Gleisberg et al., “Event generation withSHERPA1.1”,JHEP02(2009) 007, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007,arXiv:0811.4622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Event Generation withSHERPA2.2

    Sherpa Collaboration, “Event Generation withSHERPA2.2”,SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034,arXiv:1905.09127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    COMIX, a new matrix element generator

    T. Gleisberg and S. Hoeche, “COMIX, a new matrix element generator”,JHEP12(2008) 039,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/12/039,arXiv:0808.3674

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  55. [55]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case

    S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schonherr, and F. Siegert, “QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case”,JHEP04(2013) 027,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2013)027, arXiv:1207.5030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    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 2012

  58. [58]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

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

    S. Kallweit et al., “NLO QCD+EW automation and precise predictions for V+multijet production”, inProc. 50th Int. Conf. Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions, p. 121. 2015.arXiv:1505.05704

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    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

  63. [63]

    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. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering

    S. Alioli, S.-O. Moch, and P . Uwer, “Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering”,JHEP01(2012) 137,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2012)137, arXiv:1110.5251

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    NLO single-top production matched with shower inPOWHEG:s- andt-channel contributions

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO single-top production matched with shower inPOWHEG:s- andt-channel contributions”,JHEP09(2009) 111, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111,arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  66. [66]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  67. [67]

    MCFMfor the Tevatron and the LHC

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  68. [68]

    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 2020

  69. [69]

    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

  70. [70]

    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

  71. [71]

    GEANT4 developments and applications

    J. Allison et al., “GEANT4 developments and applications”,IEEE T rans. Nucl. Sci.53 (2006) 270,doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    arXiv 2006

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    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

  74. [74]

    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

  75. [75]

    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

  76. [76]

    Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,JINST15(2020) P09018, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/p09018,arXiv:2003.00503

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Pileup per particle identification

    D. Bertolini, P . Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran, “Pileup per particle identification”,JHEP 10(2014) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)059,arXiv:1407.6013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [78]

    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. References 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017

    2017

  80. [80]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV using the CMS detector”,JINST14(2019) P07004,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004,arXiv:1903.06078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.