Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 98 references

ATLAS measures the Higgs decay to a low-mass lepton pair plus a photon: combining 13 and 13.6 TeV data, the signal strength is $\mu = 1.03^{+0.35}_{-0.32}$, a 3.4$\sigma$ excess (3.3$\sigma$ expected) consistent with the Standard Model.

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 ↗

Combined Run-2+Run-3 ATLAS measurement of H to ell ell gamma (m_ll < 30 GeV) gives mu = 1.03 (+0.35/-0.32) with 3.4 sigma observed (3.3 sigma expected) significance, consistent with the Standard Model.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection First Run-3 H→ℓℓγ measurement and a Run-2+3 combination at 3.4σ; solid, honest analysis with a real but manageable background-modelling caveat—worth refereeing carefully.

arxiv 2608.03369 v1 pith:K4EK3JIQ submitted 2026-08-04 hep-ex

Measurement of the Higgs boson decay to a low-mass dilepton system and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Higgs bosonH→ℓℓγ decaysignal strengthATLASLHC Run 3merged dielectronsbackground parameterisationevidence significance
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 reading

Using 164 fb$^{-1}$ of 13.6 TeV collisions (2022–2024) combined with 139 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV data, the ATLAS Collaboration measures the rare Higgs decay $H\to\ell\ell\gamma$ at low dilepton mass ($m_{\ell\ell}<30$ GeV), extracting the signal from a simultaneous fit across nine event categories. The central claim is that the combined signal strength is $\mu = 1.03^{+0.35}_{-0.32}$ against an expected $1.00$, a 3.4$\sigma$ observed excess (3.3$\sigma$ expected) that establishes the decay at evidence level and is consistent with the Standard Model. This matters because $H\to\ell\ell\gamma$ shares the loop-induced Higgs–photon vertex with $H\to\gamma\gamma$, so its rate tests that coupling nearly independently of Higgs production, while the off-shell intermediate photon adds sensitivity to new physics absent in the diphoton channel. The Run-3 dataset alone yields $\mu = 0.64^{+0.44}_{-0.39}$ (1.7$\sigma$ observed, 2.5$\sigma$ expected) and is statistically limited; the paper also states that no dedicated low-$m_{\ell\ell}$ branching-ratio calculation exists, so the signal prediction inherits a 6.9% uncertainty from the $H\to Z\gamma$ rate.

Core claim

The central claim is that $H\to\gamma^*\gamma\to\ell\ell\gamma$ with $m_{\ell\ell}<30$ GeV is established at evidence level: combining the first 13.6 TeV measurement (164 fb$^{-1}$) with the earlier 13 TeV search (139 fb$^{-1}$), the observed signal strength is $\mu = 1.03^{+0.35}_{-0.32}$ (expected $1.00^{+0.34}_{-0.32}$), corresponding to an observed (expected) significance of 3.4 (3.3) standard deviations, and a measured cross-section times branching ratio of $4.1^{+2.8}_{-2.5}$ fb. The result is compatible with the Standard Model. Because the decay shares the loop-induced Higgs–photon coupling of $H\to\gamma\gamma$, a rate consistent with unity tests that coupling at the non-zero virtual

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three mechanisms: nine mutually exclusive categories ($\mu\mu$, resolved $ee$, merged $ee$ $\times$ VBF, high/low-$p_{\mathrm{T}t}$); signal shapes fixed from simulation as double-sided Crystal Ball functions (a Gaussian core with power-law tails), plus per-category analytic background functions — exponential of a first-order polynomial, power-law, dijet-like, or second-order Bernstein — selected by spurious-signal tests on simulated templates; and an unbinned extended likelihood, profiled over nuisance parameters, that returns the signal strength $\mu$. A new BDT-based identification of merged dielectrons (collimated electron pairs) raises signal efficiency from 6

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smooth analytic functions chosen to model the non-resonant background in each of the nine categories correctly describe the true background inside the 110–160 GeV fitted window; this choice is validated only by spurious-signal tests on simulated templates, and since the signal is a small bump on the continuum (2–25% of events in the signal window), a functional bias that slipped through those tests would shift the fitted signal strength di

What would settle it

Repeat the simultaneous fit with each category's non-resonant background replaced by a neighbouring functional form of similar flexibility (for example, an exponential of a second-order polynomial, or a Bernstein polynomial one order higher) and compare the fitted signal strength: a shift in $\mu$ larger than the quoted 0.04 spurious-signal uncertainty would show the functional choice, not the physics, is setting the result. A complementary sideband check is to fit the chosen background functions to the 2022–2024 data below 120 GeV and above 130 GeV and extrapolate into the 120–130 GeV signal

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

If this is right

  • With the measurement statistically limited (0.40 vs 0.17 systematic on $\mu$), the remaining Run-3 data and the HL-LHC should push $H\to\ell\ell\gamma$ from 3.4$\sigma$ evidence toward a 5$\sigma$ observation without new techniques.
  • The rate consistent with the Standard Model ($\mu \approx 1$) tightens the constraint on the loop-induced Higgs–photon coupling at non-zero $\gamma^*$ virtuality, complementing $H\to\gamma\gamma$ and $H\to Z\gamma$ measurements.
  • The BDT-based merged-dielectron identification — about 90% signal efficiency at the cut-based background rate — transfers directly to $H\to Z\gamma$ and other final states with collimated low-mass electron pairs.
  • The same $\ell\ell\gamma$ sample can probe the CP properties of the Higgs boson through the forward–backward asymmetry of its decay products, a use the paper motivates in its introduction.
  • The combination yields the first combined 13 + 13.6 TeV measurement of $\sigma(H)\times B(H\to\ell\ell\gamma) = 4.1^{+2.8}_{-2.5}$ fb.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The combined 3.4$\sigma$ evidence is not evenly carried by the two datasets: Run-2 alone observed 3.2$\sigma$ on an expected 2.1$\sigma$ ($\mu=1.5\pm0.5$), while Run-3 alone observed 1.7$\sigma$ on an expected 2.5$\sigma$ ($\mu=0.64$). The combination thus leans on the Run-2 upward fluctuation — a point the paper reports numerically but does not emphasise.
  • Because the intermediate $\gamma^*$ carries a virtuality set by $m_{\ell\ell}$, the dilepton-mass spectrum is a differential handle on new physics that a total-rate measurement washes out: couplings that modify the off-shell Higgs–photon form factor would distort the $m_{\ell\ell}$ shape before moving the inclusive rate. A differential $d\sigma/dm_{\ell\ell}$ measurement is a natural, testable ext
  • The Run-3 deficit relative to expectation (1.7$\sigma$ observed vs 2.5$\sigma$ expected) is consistent with a statistical fluctuation at the current sample size, and the 2025–2026 dataset should distinguish a genuine rate shortfall from noise; the category-level pattern, including negative best-fit signal strengths in some $ee$ VBF categories, is worth watching as data accumulate.
  • The paper approximates VBF-category fake-lepton fractions with values measured in the low-$p_{\mathrm{T}t}$ categories because of limited statistics; this is a modelling approximation worth revisiting, since VBF categories have the highest signal fractions (13–25%).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the Higgs boson decay to a low-mass dilepton pair and a photon, H→ℓℓγ with m_ℓℓ < 30 GeV, using 164 fb^-1 of Run-3 pp collisions at 13.6 TeV, and combines it with the earlier Run-2 search using 139 fb^-1. Events are classified into nine categories (three lepton final states × VBF/high-pTt/low-pTt). The signal is extracted by an unbinned simultaneous maximum-likelihood fit to m_ℓℓγ in 110–160 GeV, with signal shapes from simulation and non-resonant backgrounds described by analytic functions chosen per category via spurious-signal studies. The Run-3 result is μ = 0.64 +0.44/−0.39, with observed (expected) significance 1.7σ (2.5σ). The combination yields μ = 1.03 +0.35/−0.32, with observed (expected) significance 3.4σ (3.3σ), providing evidence for the decay. A BDT-based merged-dielectron identification improves the expected significance by 5% relative to the cut-based approach.

Significance. If accepted, this is the first evidence for the H→γ*γ→ℓℓγ process at the LHC based on a combination of Run-2 and Run-3 data, and the first measurement of this channel at 13.6 TeV. The result is consistent with the SM and provides a complementary test of the loop-induced Hγγ coupling. The analysis is technically careful: it includes nine category fits, a spurious-signal-driven background function selection, a detailed systematic breakdown (Table 3), and a statistically consistent combination of two data-taking periods. The paper is clearly written and follows established ATLAS practice. The main limitation, the absence of a dedicated theory uncertainty for the low-m_ℓℓ branching ratio, is acknowledged and proxied by the H→Zγ uncertainty; this is acceptable for the current precision.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2.3 / Table 3] The spurious-signal test validates the chosen background functions against the data-reweighted simulated template, not directly against data. I would encourage a closure/robustness check in which alternative functional forms (e.g., exponential of a second-order polynomial, higher-order Bernstein polynomials) are fitted to the data sidebands and the resulting shift in the fitted signal strength is examined. This would further quantify the residual data/MC shape sensitivity beyond the 0.04 spurious-signal uncertainty quoted in Table 3. I do not consider this a blocker, as the background parameters are free in the final fit and the template is reweighted to data (Section 6.2.2), but it would strengthen the paper.
  2. [Section 3, last paragraph] The overall signal selection efficiency of 12.5% is quoted relative to generated H→γ*γ→ℓℓγ events with 2m_ℓ < m_ℓℓ < 90 GeV, while the analysis selects m_ℓℓ < 30 GeV. Please clarify whether the denominator includes the full generated phase space up to 90 GeV or only events that would pass the m_ℓℓ < 30 GeV selection; as written, the efficiency definition is ambiguous.
  3. [Section 8, first paragraph] The decomposition μ = 0.64 +0.40/−0.39 (stat.) +0.18/−0.08 (syst.) does not appear to add exactly in quadrature on the negative side. Please state explicitly how the asymmetric systematic component is computed (e.g., from the profile likelihood or from the quadrature of individual nuisance impacts) or provide the covariance information.
  4. [Section 6.2.3] The description of the spurious-signal criterion would benefit from a reference to the ATLAS recommendation paper [90] at the point where the '20% of the statistical uncertainty' threshold is introduced; this helps readers understand the choice of the threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the measurement is self-contained, with the observed signal strength extracted from a data fit against MC signal templates normalized to external SM inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a measurement, not a derivation from a model. The signal strength is defined as the ratio of the measured signal yield to the SM prediction (Section 6.3: 'The parameter of interest is the signal strength μ, defined as the ratio of the measured signal yield to the SM prediction'), with the SM prediction coming from Geant4-simulated Monte Carlo normalized to SM cross-sections and branching ratios cited from the literature (Section 3: 'The samples are normalised to the SM production cross-sections... The branching ratios are taken as B(H→eeγ)=7.20×10^-5 and B(H→μμγ)=3.42×10^-5'). The observed μ is therefore not defined in terms of its own fit output; it is a fitted parameter compared with an external expectation. The expected signal strength and expected significance are computed from the same simulated signal samples and are not claimed to be data-derived predictions. The background functional forms are chosen via spurious-signal tests on simulated background templates (Section 6.2.3); this is a validation of the analytic ansatz, not a fitting of the signal to data. Any concern about template fidelity is a modeling systematic, which the paper assigns a 0.04 spurious-signal uncertainty (Table 3), rather than a circular step. The self-citations are methodological (Ref. [15] for strategy) or provide an external uncertainty input (Ref. [20] for the 6.9% branching-ratio uncertainty). The paper explicitly notes the absence of a dedicated theory calculation for the low-m_ll branching ratio and borrows a conservative uncertainty from H→Zγ; this is an input limitation, not a circular reduction of the measured signal strength. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external SM inputs (branching ratios and cross-sections from cited theory), simulated signal shapes, and data-fitted background functions. The only ad hoc element is the proxy branching-ratio uncertainty (6.9% from H to Z gamma), which the paper itself flags in Section 3. There are no invented entities; the merged-dielectron BDT is a technique, not a new physical object. Free parameters are the per-category background coefficients and spurious-signal nuisance terms fitted in the likelihood, plus the hand-chosen BDT working point.

free parameters (4)
  • Non-resonant background shape and normalisation coefficients (e.g., p0, p1 of the exponential-of-polynomial functions) = fitted to data in the global likelihood, per category
    The background normalisation and shape are free in each of the nine categories; the signal strength extraction depends on these fitted parameters not absorbing the signal bump. This is disclosed as the standard approach.
  • Spurious-signal nuisance parameters = Gaussian-constrained to zero with per-category width |SS|
    Introduced to encode background-model uncertainty; the 0.04 effect on mu (Table 3) is estimated from template studies rather than derived, and the acceptance criterion (|SS| less than 20% of statistical uncertainty or 10% of expected yield, Section 6.2.3) is a threshold chosen by the analysis.
  • Non-resonant reweighting function parameters (p0..p3) for the low-pT resolved-ee category = fitted to data sidebands via chi2/ndf criterion (Section 6.2.2)
    A linear-plus-exponential reweighting is chosen for one category; its four parameters are fitted and affect the background template from which the final analytic function is selected.
  • BDT identification working-point threshold = chosen to match the 10-20% background efficiency of the cut-based ID (Section 4.1)
    Hand-picked operating point; at this point signal efficiency rises from about 62% to about 90%, directly setting the expected signal yield in the merged-ee channels.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption B(H to ee gamma) = 7.20e-5 and B(H to mu mu gamma) = 3.42e-5 for m_ll < 30 GeV (Firan-Stroynowski)
    Taken from Ref [8] and used to normalise the SM expectation to which mu = 1 refers (Section 3). If this branching ratio is off, the measured mu shifts correspondingly.
  • ad hoc to paper No dedicated theory uncertainty exists for the low-m_ll H to ell ell gamma branching ratio; the 6.9% H to Z gamma branching-ratio uncertainty is adopted as a proxy
    Explicitly stated in Section 3: 'no theoretical uncertainty calculation exists for the low-m_ll H to ell ell gamma branching ratio. Therefore, the theoretical uncertainty of 6.9% on the H to Z gamma branching ratio is used.' This proxy enters the expected uncertainty on mu and the combination.
  • domain assumption The DSCB signal shape fitted to simulated events (with a +0.09 GeV mass shift) describes the true signal in data
    All six DSCB parameters are fixed from fits to MC per category (Section 6.1). A mismodelled signal width or tail would bias the extracted yield; the 5.8% mass-resolution uncertainty is the only allowance for this.
  • domain assumption The H to gamma gamma resonant background has the same shape as the H to gamma*-gamma signal
    Shape parameters of the H to gamma gamma background are fixed to the signal DSCB shape with yields from simulation (Section 6.2). This matters for the electron categories, where H to gamma gamma is 2.4% (resolved) and 16% (merged) of the signal.
  • domain assumption SM production cross-sections (ggF at N3LO QCD + NLO EW, VBF, VH, ttH at NLO/NNLO from Refs [37] and [70]) normalise the expected signal
    Signal samples are normalised to SM cross-sections (Section 3); category-level QCD scale and parton-shower uncertainties of up to 16-23% are assigned on top, but the central values come from external theory.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the Higgs boson decay to a low-mass dilepton system and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4EK3JIQ

@misc{pith2026260803369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the Higgs boson decay to a low-mass dilepton system and a photon in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrts =$ 13 and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4EK3JIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03369}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

A measurement is presented for the Higgs boson decaying into a photon and a pair of electrons or muons with an invariant mass $m_{\ell\ell} <$ 30 GeV, using $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13.6 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during the years 2022-2024, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 164 fb$^{-1}$. The best-fit value of the signal strength parameter, defined as the ratio of the observed signal yield to the one expected in the Standard Model, is measured to be $\mu = 0.64^{+0.44}_{-0.39}$ compared with the expected value of $\mu = 1.00^{+0.47}_{-0.41}$. The corresponding observed (expected) signal significance is 1.7 (2.5) standard deviations under the background-only hypothesis. The result is combined with a similar search performed using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV collected during the years 2015-2018. This combination gives an observed (expected) signal strength of $\mu = 1.03^{+0.35}_{-0.32}\,(\mu = 1.00^{+0.34}_{-0.32})$, corresponding to an observed (expected) significance of 3.4 (3.3) standard deviations.

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

98 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Evans and P

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

    2008

  2. [2]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    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, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration, A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 52, arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature612(2022) E24. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature607(2022) 60, arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex], Erratum: Nature623(2023) E4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Study of the spin and parity of the Higgs boson in diboson decays with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 476, arXiv:1506.05669 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    CMS Collaboration,Constraints on the spin-parity and anomalous HVV couplings of the Higgs boson in proton collisions at7and8TeV, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 012004, arXiv:1411.3441 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Firan and R

    A. Firan and R. Stroynowski,Internal conversions in Higgs decays to two photons, Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 057301, arXiv:0704.3987 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Kachanovich, U

    A. Kachanovich, U. Nierste and I. Nišandžić, Higgs boson decay into a lepton pair and a photon revisited, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 073003, arXiv:2001.06516 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    A. Y. Korchin and V. A. Kovalchuk,Angular distribution and forward–backward asymmetry of the Higgs-boson decay to photon and lepton pair, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3141, arXiv:1408.0342 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Y. Chen, A. Falkowski, I. Low and R. Vega-Morales, New Observables for CP Violation in Higgs Decays, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 113006, arXiv:1405.6723 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Chen, C.-F

    L.-B. Chen, C.-F. Qiao and R.-L. Zhu,Reconstructing the 125 GeV SM Higgs Boson Throughℓ ¯ℓ𝛾, Phys. Lett. B726(2013) 306, [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 808, 135629 (2020)], arXiv:1211.6058 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    Passarino,Higgs Boson Production and Decay: Dalitz Sector, Phys

    G. Passarino,Higgs Boson Production and Decay: Dalitz Sector, Phys. Lett. B727(2013) 424, arXiv:1308.0422 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Kachanovich, U

    A. Kachanovich, U. Nierste and I. Nišandžić,Higgs boson decay into a lepton pair and a photon: A roadmap to the discovery of H→Z𝛾and probes of new physics, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 013007, arXiv:2109.04426 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Evidence for Higgs boson decays to a low-mass dilepton system and a photon in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B819(2021) 136412, arXiv:2103.10322 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    CMS Collaboration, SearchforthedecayofaHiggsbosoninthe ℓℓ𝛾 channelinproton–protoncollisionsat √𝑠=13TeV , JHEP11(2018) 152, arXiv:1806.05996 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    ATLAS Collaboration,A search for the𝑍𝛾decay mode of the Higgs boson in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135754, arXiv:2005.05382 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for Higgs boson decays to a𝑍boson and a photon in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP05(2023) 233, arXiv:2204.12945 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Evidence for the Higgs Boson Decay to a𝑍Boson and a Photon at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 021803, arXiv:2309.03501 [hep-ex]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for the Higgs boson decay to a𝑍boson and a photon in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=13TeV and13.6TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B876(2026) 140313, arXiv:2507.12598 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

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

    2008

  22. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: a description of the detector configuration for Run 3, JINST19(2024) P05063, arXiv:2305.16623 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS trigger system for LHC Run 3 and trigger performance in 2022, JINST19(2024) P06029, arXiv:2401.06630 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 47, arXiv:1909.00761 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS muon trigger in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=8TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 120, arXiv:1408.3179 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  29. [29]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

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

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

    2003

  31. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration,AtlFast3: The Next Generation of Fast Simulation in ATLAS, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.6(2022) 7, arXiv:2109.02551 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Emulating the impact of additional proton–proton interactions in the ATLAS simulation by presampling sets of inelastic Monte Carlo events, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.6(2022) 3, arXiv:2102.09495 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Werner, F.-M

    K. Werner, F.-M. Liu and T. Pierog, Parton ladder splitting and the rapidity dependence of transverse momentum spectra in deuteron–gold collisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C74(2006) 044902, arXiv:hep-ph/0506232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    Pierog, I

    T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. M. Katzy, E. Yatsenko and K. Werner,EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C92(2015) 034906, arXiv:1306.0121 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  35. [35]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codebases (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie–Landshoff diffractive model, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-017, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965. 22

    arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, (2017), arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    Anastasiou, C

    C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, F. Herzog and B. Mistlberger, Higgs Boson Gluon-Fusion Production in QCD at Three Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 212001, arXiv:1503.06056 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    Anastasiou et al., High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC, JHEP05(2016) 058, arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]

    C. Anastasiou et al., High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC, JHEP05(2016) 058, arXiv:1602.00695 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Dulat, A

    F. Dulat, A. Lazopoulos and B. Mistlberger,iHixs 2 – Inclusive Higgs cross sections, Comput. Phys. Commun.233(2018) 243, arXiv:1802.00827 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    R. V. Harlander and K. J. Ozeren, Finite top mass effects for hadronic Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order, JHEP11(2009) 088, arXiv:0909.3420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    R. V. Harlander and K. J. Ozeren, Top mass effects in Higgs production at next-to-next-to-leading order QCD: Virtual corrections, Phys. Lett. B679(2009) 467, arXiv:0907.2997 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    R. V. Harlander, H. Mantler, S. Marzani and K. J. Ozeren, Higgs production in gluon fusion at next-to-next-to-leading order QCD for finite top mass, Eur. Phys. J. C66(2010) 359, arXiv:0912.2104 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    A. Pak, M. Rogal and M. Steinhauser, Finite top quark mass effects in NNLO Higgs boson production at LHC, JHEP02(2010) 025, arXiv:0911.4662 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, NLO electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B670(2008) 12, arXiv:0809.1301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati, NNLO computational techniques: The cases𝐻→𝛾𝛾 and𝐻→𝑔𝑔 , Nucl. Phys. B811(2009) 182, arXiv:0809.3667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Anastasiou, R

    C. Anastasiou, R. Boughezal and F. Petriello, Mixed QCD-electroweak corrections to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion, JHEP04(2009) 003, arXiv:0811.3458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  48. [48]

    Aglietti, R

    U. Aglietti, R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, Two-loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and decays, Phys. Lett. B595(2004) 432, arXiv:hep-ph/0404071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    Bonetti, K

    M. Bonetti, K. Melnikov and L. Tancredi,Higher order corrections to mixed QCD-EW contributions to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 056017, arXiv:1801.10403 [hep-ph], Erratum: Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 099906(E)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Ciccolini, A

    M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier,Strong and Electroweak Corrections to the Production of a Higgs Boson + 2 Jets via Weak Interactions at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett.99(2007) 161803, arXiv:0707.0381 [hep-ph]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Ciccolini, A

    M. Ciccolini, A. Denner and S. Dittmaier, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Higgs production via vector-boson fusion at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 013002, arXiv:0710.4749 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [52]

    Bolzoni, F

    P. Bolzoni, F. Maltoni, S.-O. Moch and M. Zaro, Higgs Boson Production via Vector-Boson Fusion at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 011801, arXiv:1003.4451 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

    M. L. Ciccolini, S. Dittmaier and M. Krämer, Electroweak radiative corrections to associated𝑊𝐻and𝑍𝐻production at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 073003, arXiv:hep-ph/0306234

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [54]

    Brein, A

    O. Brein, A. Djouadi and R. Harlander, NNLO QCD corrections to the Higgs-strahlung processes at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B579(2004) 149, arXiv:hep-ph/0307206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  55. [55]

    Brein, R

    O. Brein, R. V. Harlander, M. Wiesemann and T. Zirke, Top-quark mediated effects in hadronic Higgs-Strahlung, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1868, arXiv:1111.0761 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  56. [56]

    Altenkamp, S

    L. Altenkamp, S. Dittmaier, R. V. Harlander, H. Rzehak and T. J. E. Zirke, Gluon-induced Higgs-strahlung at next-to-leading order QCD, JHEP02(2013) 078, arXiv:1211.5015 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit and A. Mück,HAWK 2.0: A Monte Carlo program for Higgs production in vector-boson fusion and Higgs strahlung at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.195(2015) 161, arXiv:1412.5390 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Brein, R

    O. Brein, R. V. Harlander and T. J. E. Zirke,vh@nnlo – Higgs Strahlung at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 998, arXiv:1210.5347 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    R. V. Harlander, A. Kulesza, V. Theeuwes and T. Zirke, Soft gluon resummation for gluon-induced Higgs Strahlung, JHEP11(2014) 082, arXiv:1410.0217 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    R. V. Harlander, J. Klappert, S. Liebler and L. Simon,vh@nnlo-v2: new physics in Higgs Strahlung, JHEP05(2018) 089, arXiv:1802.04817 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [61]

    Beenakker et al.,NLO QCD corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production in hadron collisions, Nucl

    W. Beenakker et al.,NLO QCD corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B653(2003) 151, arXiv:hep-ph/0211352

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  62. [62]

    Dawson, C

    S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth,Associated Higgs boson production with top quarks at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: NLO QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 034022, arXiv:hep-ph/0305087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    Zhang, W.-G

    Y. Zhang, W.-G. Ma, R.-Y. Zhang, C. Chen and L. Guo, QCD NLO and EW NLO corrections to𝑡¯𝑡𝐻production with top quark decays at hadron collider, Phys. Lett. B738(2014) 1, arXiv:1407.1110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    Frixione, V

    S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H.-S. Shao and M. Zaro, Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons, JHEP06(2015) 184, arXiv:1504.03446 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Nason and C

    P. Nason and C. Oleari, NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG, JHEP02(2010) 037, arXiv:0911.5299 [hep-ph]. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  66. [66]

    Alioli, P

    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, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [67]

    Nason,A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  68. [68]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP11(2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  69. [69]

    H. B. Hartanto, B. Jäger, L. Reina and D. Wackeroth, Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 094003, arXiv:1501.04498 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Karlberg et al., Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at√𝑠=13.6TeV, (2024), arXiv:2402.09955 [hep-ph]

    A. Karlberg et al., Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at√𝑠=13.6TeV, (2024), arXiv:2402.09955 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 452, arXiv:1912.06509 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  74. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Track and Vertex Reconstruction with the ATLAS Inner Detector, (2026), arXiv:2605.07585 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Electron and photon efficiencies in LHC Run 2 with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP05(2024) 162, arXiv:2308.13362 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    [77]LightGBM’s documentation,url:https://lightgbm.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

    ATLAS Collaboration,Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST14(2019) P12006, arXiv:1908.00005 [hep-ex]. [77]LightGBM’s documentation,url:https://lightgbm.readthedocs.io/en/stable/

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [78]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [79]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 490, arXiv:1603.02934 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [80]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  80. [81]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.