A first look at strange-quark polarization in top-quark decays with CMS Open Data

Yevgeny Kats

REVIEW

A first look at strange-quark polarization in top-quark decays with CMS Open Data

Yevgeny Kats

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 30 Oct 2026 · 42 references

Pith's verdict: A genuine first flavor-isolated strange-quark polarimetry attempt on LHC data, honestly documented; the result is statistically empty by design, and the one real weakness — the 0.06 acceptance systematic not probing the signal kinematics — does not threaten the 'consistent' conclusion.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on November 2, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID2610.42143 (version 1)

Pith IDA5QFPTJE, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationYevgeny Kats. "A first look at strange-quark polarization in top-quark decays with CMS Open Data." arXiv:2610.42143 (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A5QFPTJE

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

First, the punchline: this is a legitimate first — the first flavor-isolated shot at strange-quark polarimetry on LHC collision data — and it is honestly documented. The result itself, P∥(z>0.3) = +0.04 ± 0.45 ± 0.06, is statistically empty by design; the value is in the chain being validated end-to-end and in the systematics map it leaves for the next measurement.

What is actually new: the author's own 2015 proposal (ref [11]) finally gets a data realization. LEP was flavor-inclusive; ATLAS looked at transverse polarization of inclusive Lambdas. This isolates the strange jet via the charm partner and the lepton charge. The estimator is clean — Eq. 5 normalizes on the simulated acceptance mean, so the fit is valid whatever the acceptance shape. The wrong-sign control is a genuinely good idea, and the pileup "far class" diagnosis (89% of the low-pT excess, charge-symmetric, under-produced in simulation) is careful work. Pseudo-experiment closure is unbiased, pull 1.00.

The soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test is right that the 0.06 systematic does not do what the paper claims for it: it is the pT-reweighting closure residual, measured in a control region that is 4.5% strange jets and nearly unpolarized, and at z>0.3 the reweighting moves P by only 0.01 — so that 0.06 is set in a kinematic regime the signal sample barely occupies. The author is candid about the incompleteness (b248, b299), but the "0.06 (syst.)" is still presented as the measurement's systematic. That is the honest criticism. However, it does not touch the central claim: a hidden acceptance bias of order 0.1 cannot drag +0.04 ± 0.45 out of agreement with either zero or the −0.28..−0.37 band. The conclusion stands; only the "systematics quantified" framing is overreach.

Other things to flag, all acknowledged in the text: the data/sim yield ratio is 0.74 ± 0.13 at z>0.3; the |dz|<0.5 cm pointing requirement would shift P by −0.13 ± 0.12; the charm-tag shape calibration assumes the simulated flavor composition. None is fatal at this precision, but a fuller systematic accounting is needed before the numbers mean anything physical.

Who this is for: people working on spin-dependent fragmentation or light-quark polarization at the LHC, and anyone wanting a template for a MiniAOD open-data analysis. The Run-2/3/HL-LHC projections are useful context, not predictions.

Recommendation: engage. It deserves peer review. I would want the analysis code released and the systematic accounting either redone or explicitly scoped as preliminary, but the core contribution — a working, honestly documented polarimetry chain on public data — is solid.

What would settle it

Run the identical selection on the full Run 2 plus Run 3 dataset ($\approx450\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$): the paper's own scaling gives a projected uncertainty of about 0.13 at $z>0.3$, which would already reveal whether the central value is drifting toward the LEP-inferred $P_\parallel\approx-0.28$ to $-0.37$ band or staying at zero. The decisive test is the HL-LHC measurement (projected $\sigma\approx0.05$): if it stays within roughly 0.1 of zero, the claim that leading $\Lambda$ baryons retain an $\mathcal{O}(1)$ fraction of the strange quark's longitudinal polarization is excluded. An intermediate, cheaper check is the charge-correlation purity $g(z>0.3)$, which the simulation predicts at $+0.28\pm0.04$: a persistent deficit in data as statistics grow would indict the strange-jet identification rather than the fragmentation physics.

Referee report

Significance

The result is a null measurement at the present precision, and the paper says so (§6, b278). Its value lies elsewhere and is real: the analysis is a complete, end-to-end realization of a polarimetry chain on public collision data, and it quantifies the dilutions that dominate such a measurement rather than hiding them behind a single purity number. Three things deserve explicit credit. First, Eq. (5) is an exact treatment of the acceptance rather than a parametric model of it, and the paper is careful about the one condition it requires, namely that the simulated mean equals the acceptance mean of the data sample. Second, the dilution is handled with two conventions, D_f (measurable in data) and D_ens (the LEP convention), and the paper states clearly where each one over- or under-states the physical polarization (b206, b207). Third, the LEP band is restated in the modern α_Λ = 0.755 convention with the rescaling shown explicitly (footnotes 2 and 15), which is exactly the bookkeeping this literature needs. The projections of table 6 are useful for planning future work. The manuscript is also unusually candid about what it has not done (b167, b242, b246, b299).

Major objections (3)

[§5.5 and Eq. (6)] Equation (6) carries a single systematic uncertainty, ±0.06, which §5.5 defines as the larger of the two post-reweighting closure residuals measured in the control region (b jets +0.05±0.04, W-candidate jets −0.06±0.04). That region is 4.5% strange-jet and is dominated by soft Λ (⟨z⟩ = 0.129), and §5.5 itself observes that the pT reweighting moves the z>0.3 result by only 0.01, so the closure residual is measured precisely where the observable of interest is least sensitive. Two other acceptance and selection prescriptions move the z>0.3 central value by more than the assigned systematic: the pointing requirement gives −0.09±0.46, a shift of −0.13±0.12, and the bin-by-bin pT combination gives +0.34±0.50 against +0.04±0.45. Because Eq. (6) is the headline number of the paper, I would ask the authors to state next to Eq. (6), in §5.4, that the quoted systematic covers the reweighting residual only and that no other systematic uncertainty is evaluated, and to either propagate the spread among these prescriptions with the correlation of the samples accounted for or explain explicitly why they do not constitute an additional uncertainty. This will not change any conclusion, since the statistical uncertainty dominates by an order of magnitude, but it is needed to make the characterization of the number in Eq. (6) accurate.
[§5.2, §5.5 and Table 5] The second stated contribution of the paper (§1, §6) is the validated chain, whose acceptance is modeled by the reweighted simulation and whose residual is quoted as the single systematic uncertainty. The data-based validation of that acceptance is, however, performed in the control region of §5.2 (figure 5 left, χ² = 7.5 for nine pT bins) and in the wrong-sign sample of §5.5, and neither is the 37-candidate z>0.3 signal sample. The wrong-sign fit at z>0.3 returns +0.34±0.39 and at z>0.2 returns +0.07±0.28 (Table 5), so an acceptance or background effect common to the two pairings is bounded in situ only at the 0.3 to 0.4 level in the signal kinematics, while the quoted systematic is 0.06. The authors are candid about the soft-Λ composition of the sample (b167, b242), but the manuscript never states this bound quantitatively. I would ask for one added sentence in §5.5 giving the in-situ bound on a common acceptance bias in the z>0.2 and z>0.3 samples that follows from the wrong-sign control, and for a statement of the level at which the chain may be said to be validated. The result in Eq. (6) is not endangered by this; the question is what the paper can claim the chain has been validated against.
[§1, §5.3 and the abstract] The abstract and §5.4 compare Eq. (6) with the transfer inferred from the flavor-averaged LEP measurements, a band of −0.28 to −0.37 on P_fit obtained by rescaling the LEP polynomial band by the analyzing-power ratio (footnote 2), by the Born-level polarization ratio (footnote 15), and by D_ens = 0.62 taken from the present simulation (§5.3). No uncertainty is assigned to the band itself, to the flavor-composition unfolding that produced it, or to D_ens, although the LEP analyses quote ±0.05 and ±0.08 on their inclusive values and the pure-strange-jet band is model-derived. Since the band is 0.09 wide and the measurement uncertainty is 0.45, the statement that the result is consistent with the LEP transfer currently carries little quantitative content. I would ask the authors either to attach a model and dilution uncertainty to the band, which is the more informative option, or to state in the abstract and in §5.4 that the comparison is qualitative. This is a small edit, but it touches the wording of the abstract and of §6.

Minor objections (9)

[§5.3, p. 15] The sentence 'Inclusively in z, g = +0.015±0.032 in the data and +0.031±0.012 in simulation, i.e. f ≈ 6%' is ambiguous: with f = 2g/(1+g) the simulation gives 6% but the data give about 3%. Please quote f separately for the two samples so that the reader does not read 6% as the data value.
[§5.5, last paragraph of the systematic discussion] It is stated that a systematic uncertainty of 0.06 is assigned 'on every polarization quoted in section 5'. Please clarify whether this includes the two transverse components and the wrong-sign control values, which are extracted with different templates, since the closure argument that produces 0.06 is specific to the longitudinal right-sign fit.
[§4 and §5.2] The genuine strange fraction of 37% quoted at the end of §4 (figure 4, agreeing pairing) and the 4.5% strange-jet content of the control region quoted in §5.2 are different quantities in different samples. One definitional sentence would prevent the reader from taking them as inconsistent.
[§5.2] The statement that the far class 'account for 89% of the data excess over the simulation below 3.5 GeV' does not say whether the excess is computed in the control region or in the strange-jet signal sample, nor how the yields are normalized. Please specify.
[§5.6 and Table 6] The projections use the simulation value D_f = 0.43 while the data give D_f = 0.27±0.18 at z>0.3. Please state in the table caption that the dilution used for the projection is the simulation value, so the projected reach is not read as a data-based number.
[Eq. (5) and the sentence that follows it] The statement that the likelihood holds 'irrespective of the shape of the acceptance' is correct only under the condition that ⟨cosθ⟩_sim is the acceptance-weighted mean of the data sample. Since the entire estimator rests on that condition, it would be worth making it explicit in one clause at Eq. (5), and repeating it where the reweighting is introduced in §5.2.
[§5.2, figure 5] The reweighting factors run up to 1.87 in the softest pT bin, and the bin boundaries are not given in the text. A table of the bin edges and weights, or a logarithmic axis on the right-hand panel, would make the reweighting reproducible from the paper alone.
[Acknowledgements and data availability] The analysis rests on public CMS Open Data referenced by record number (table 1 and refs. [21, 22, 27, 28]), which is good practice, but I could not find a data- or code-availability statement or a repository link for the analysis software. Since the stated contribution of the paper is the chain itself, an availability statement pointing to the code would materially increase its usefulness and is standard for open-data analyses in this journal.
[§5.1 and Table 5] The sign convention that a left-handed Λ and a right-handed Λ̄ both correspond to negative P is stated once in §5.1 but is essential for reading the sign of the comparison in §5.4 and Table 5. A one-line reminder beside Eq. (6) would help.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Strange-quark polarimetry works end to end on collision data: $P_\parallel = +0.04\pm0.45\pm0.06$ for $\Lambda$ baryons in hadronic-$W$ strange jets, consistent with zero and with LEP.

The reading

The paper establishes, end to end, that the spin of a strange quark can be read out from the baryons it fragments into, using real collision data. In semileptonic top-quark pair events the hadronic $W$ decays as $W^+\to c\bar{s}$ (or the charge conjugate), and the weak $V-A$ coupling produces the strange quark almost fully polarized, so the longitudinal polarization of $\Lambda$ baryons in the strange jet directly measures how much quark spin survives fragmentation, a quantity the nonperturbative side of QCD barely constrains. The measurement, on 16.39 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of public CMS data, gives $P_\parallel(z>0.3) = +0.04\pm 0.45\,(\mathrm{stat.})\pm 0.06\,(\mathrm{syst.})$, consistent both with zero spin transfer and with the large transfer inferred from flavor-averaged LEP measurements, so the paper's value is the validated chain rather than a decisive number. Why it matters: if the technique holds, quark polarization becomes measurable in any sufficiently large sample, and the same $t\bar{t}$ events can decompose the spin transfer flavor by flavor.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the parity-violating weak decay $\Lambda\to p\pi^-$ (branching fraction 64%, $c\tau_\Lambda\approx 7.9$ cm), whose proton angular distribution $\mathrm{d}\Gamma/\mathrm{d}\cos\theta \propto 1+\alpha_\Lambda P(\Lambda)\cos\theta$ turns polarization into a forward-backward asymmetry of the proton, with combined analyzing power $|\alpha_\Lambda|=0.755$ built from the PDG values for $\Lambda$ and $\bar{\Lambda}$ decay. The strange quark whose spin is being probed is produced almost fully polarized by the left-handed $W\to c\bar{s}$ coupling ($P(s)\approx -1$), and the charm partner of the decay identifies the strange jet through a custom DeepJet charm-tagging working point. The polarimeter axis is the $\Lambda$ flight direction in the $W$ rest frame, with two transverse components that serve as null checks. The acceptance is far from flat because the soft pion of the decay is often lost below the $V_0$ tracking threshold, making $\langle\cos\theta\rangle$ depend steeply on $\Lambda$ $p_T$; the analysis corrects this by reweighting the simulated $\Lambda$ $p_T$ spectrum to the data spectrum in a large control region, and assigns the reweighting residual, 0.06, as the systematic uncertainty. The wrong-sign sample (baryon number opposite to the lepton-charge expectation) provides an in-data acceptance control and returns a polarization consistent with zero.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms the paper claims that strange-quark polarimetry is realizable in top-quark pair events at the LHC, and demonstrates the first realization on collision data. The chain is: pick semileptonic $t\bar{t}$ events; reconstruct the hadronic top; require exactly one charm-tagged jet among the $W$ decay jets so that its partner is the strange jet; reconstruct $\Lambda\to p\pi^-$ (and conjugate) decays as displaced $V_0$ vertices inside that jet; keep the candidate whose baryon number matches the lepton charge; and fit the proton decay angle with an unbinned maximum-likelihood estimator $\ln\mathcal{L}(P)=\sum_i\ln(1+\alpha P\cos\theta_i)-N\ln(1+\alpha P\langle\cos\theta\rangle_{\mathrm{sim}})$. The central result is the longitudinal polarization in the high-momentum-fraction region $z>0.3$, $P_\parallel = +0.04\pm 0.45\pm 0.06$, stated as consistent with zero and with the $P_\parallel\approx -0.28$ to $-0.37$ expected if $\Lambda$ baryons retain the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ fraction of the strange-quark polarization inferred from LEP. The paper's stated contribution is the validated analysis chain, the quantitative decomposition of the sample's purity and dilutions, and two design findings for a future measurement: the baryon-number-lepton-charge correlation $g$ measures the strange content of the sample directly in data, and the steep $\Lambda$ $p_T$ dependence of the decay-angle acceptance means a spectrum mismatch would masquerade as polarization unless the simulation is reweighted.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the decay-angle acceptance within the strange-jet sample matches the unpolarized simulation after a $\Lambda$ $p_T$ reweighting whose weights are determined almost entirely outside that sample, since strange-jet candidates make up only 4.5% of the calibration control region, so an acceptance error special to the signal region would enter the result uncaught.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same reconstructed events simultaneously supply $\Lambda$ baryons from $b$ jets, from charm-tagged jets, and from the light-quark jets of $W\to u\bar{d}$, each carrying a known quark polarization, so the spin transfer can be decomposed by quark flavor within one dataset, something the flavor-inclusive LEP measurements could not do.
Scaling the $z>0.3$ uncertainty with $t\bar{t}$ event counts, the paper projects roughly 0.26 statistical precision per experiment with full Run 2, 0.13 with Run 2 plus Run 3, and 0.050 at the HL-LHC, the last approaching LEP-level sensitivity but for strange jets alone.
A longitudinal pointing requirement that removes candidates whose line of flight misses the primary vertex by more than 0.5 cm would strip out most pileup $\Lambda$ baryons, the one component the simulation underproduces, at a cost of a few percent of genuine $\Lambda$ decays; the paper recommends it for a future measurement once its effect on the decay-angle acceptance is validated in data.
A joint likelihood over the right-sign and wrong-sign samples, with a common charge-symmetric acceptance asymmetry as a free parameter, would let the wrong-sign sample test the acceptance without doubling the statistical uncertainty.
Because the result is consistent with both zero and the LEP-inferred band, the paper states explicitly that the present precision cannot test the polarization transfer, and that the contribution is the validated chain and the quantified systematics for larger datasets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the LEP-inferred transfer is confirmed at HL-LHC precision, this becomes a generic quark polarimeter: any sufficiently large sample containing a $W\to c\bar{s}$-type weak vertex could read out strange-quark polarization, giving experimental access to the longitudinally polarized fragmentation functions $\Delta D^{\Lambda/q}(z)$ that still rest on a single LEP-era QCD analysis.
A null result at HL-LHC precision would be the sharper outcome: it would mean leading $\Lambda$ baryons in $t\bar{t}$ events do not inherit the strange-quark helicity, contradicting the LEP-based expectation and forcing a re-examination of scale evolution or hadronization-model assumptions rather than a refinement of the central value.
The baryon-number-charge correlation $g(z)$ is itself a cheap diagnostic the paper leaves implicit: if a future dataset's $g(z>0.3)$ fails to rise toward the simulated $+0.28\pm0.04$ value, the strange-jet selection or the simulation's strange content is at fault, and the polarization fit would be suspect before any fragmentation physics is inferred.
A testable extension is to interpret the $\Lambda$ $p_T$ reweighting weights as a measurement of the soft-$\Lambda$ deficit: since the paper cannot separate a generator-level deficit of soft strange baryons from a reconstruction-efficiency mismatch, comparing the weights against dedicated strange-hadron production measurements at the LHC could settle which one is real.

Original abstract

We present a first realization of strange-quark polarimetry in top-quark decays. The longitudinal polarization of $\Lambda$ baryons is measured in the strange jets of hadronic $W\to c\bar s$ decays in semileptonic top-quark pair events, using 16.39 fb$^{-1}$ of the public CMS data of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. The $W$ decay produces the strange quark fully polarized, so that the $\Lambda$ polarization measures the transfer of the quark polarization in fragmentation. With the limited statistics available, our result is consistent both with zero and with the transfer inferred from the flavor-averaged LEP measurements. The statistical reach with the full Run-2, Run-3 and HL-LHC datasets is projected.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-11-02: 1 request, 4,329 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.96 · states limitation 0.97 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.14 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.23 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.14.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We present a first realization of strange-quark polarimetry in top-quark decays. The longitudinal polarization of $\Lambda$ baryons is measured in the strange jets of hadronic $W\to c\bar s$ decays in semileptonic top-quark pair events, using 16.39 fb$^{-1}$ of the public CMS data of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. The $W$ decay produces the strange quark fully polarized, so that the $\Lambda$ polarization measures the transfer of the quark polarization in fragmentation. With the limited statistics available, our result is consistent both with zero and with the transfer inferred from the flavor-averaged LEP measurements. The statistical reach with the full Run-2, Run-3 and HL-LHC datasets is projected.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We present a first realization of strange-quark polarimetry in top-quark decays.	contribution 1.00	0.93	0.16	asserted 0.99
s1	The longitudinal polarization of $\Lambda$ baryons is measured in the strange jets of hadronic $W\to c\bar s$ decays in semileptonic top-quark pair events, using 16.39 fb$^{-1}$ of the public CMS data of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV.	method 0.85	0.96	0.08	asserted 1.00
s2	The $W$ decay produces the strange quark fully polarized, so that the $\Lambda$ polarization measures the transfer of the quark polarization in fragmentation.	background 0.58	0.14	0.10	asserted 1.00
s3	With the limited statistics available, our result is consistent both with zero and with the transfer inferred from the flavor-averaged LEP measurements.	result 0.80	0.90	0.60	hedged possibility 0.99
s4	The statistical reach with the full Run-2, Run-3 and HL-LHC datasets is projected.	future work 0.94	0.76	0.04	asserted 0.79

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.93.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Hadronic top reconstruction by χ 2 minimization, eq. (4), in collision data (points) and in the stacked simulation (filled: the semileptonic t¯t signal, dileptonic t¯t, and single top), with the simulation normalized to the data luminosity. Panels, from left: the reconstructed hadronic W mass mj j and top mass mj jb (input masses dashed), and the best-combination χ 2 with the χ 2 < 10 selection marked, all in the one-lepton, ≥4-jet, ≥2-b-tag signal region. UL2016, a nominal b-jet efficiency of about 80%). The c-tagging working point is described in section 3.4. 3.2 Basic event sele

**Figure 2.** Data/simulation comparison in the one-lepton, ≥4-jet, ≥2-b-tag, reconstructed-hadronic-top signal region in collision data (points, statistical errors) and the stacked semileptonic and dileptonic t¯t and single-top simulation (normalized to the data luminosity). First row: the lepton pT and the leading-jet pT . Second row: the scalar jet-pT sum HT and the jet multiplicity. Third row: the medium- and the tight-working-point b-tag multiplicities. Fourth row: the c-tag multiplicity over the signal-region jets that fail the medium b tag, and restricted to the two reconstructedW jets.…

**Figure 3.** Reconstruction cross-checks for the strange-jet

**Figure 4.** The Λ and Λ¯ candidates in the strange-jet candidates as a function of the momentum fraction z = p Λ T /p jet T . Top left: collision data (points) and simulation normalized to the data luminosity (16.39 fb−1 ). The semileptonic t¯t is stacked by the generator flavor of the tagged jet, with single top (gray) and dileptonic t¯t (brown) as separate components. Each flavor component is split into two cases: the solid part is the fraction whose Λ baryon number sign agrees with that of the jet’s parton (quark jet → Λ, antiquark jet → Λ¯), the hatched part the opposite pairing. The leg

**Figure 5.** The Λ-baryon pT dependence of 〈cosθ〉 and the Λ-baryon pT spectrum in the control region of the pT reweighting, which comprises the Λ candidates in any of the three jets of the top triplet. Left: 〈cosθ〉 for the longitudinal axis versus p Λ T for the unpolarized simulation (filled) and the data (open). Right: the p Λ T distributions of data (points) and simulation (histogram), each normalized to unit area, and their ratio, the reweighting factor w(pT ). simulated candidates, whose decay polarization the simulation does not reproduce; both enter the closure that will be presented in…

**Figure 6.** Λ polarimetry along the longitudinal axis in the strange jet of W+ → c¯s. Left: the Λ decay angle cosθ in the unpolarized simulation (semileptonic and dileptonic t¯t and single top), with the Λ pT reweighting of the polarization fit (solid), together with its reweighting by 1 + αP cosθ to P = −1 and +1 (dashed) and the collision data (points). Since only a fraction of the candidates carry the primary strange quark, their physical polarization shifts this inclusive sample by far less than the templates shown. Right: 〈cosθ〉 for two samples of simulated candidates, those whose jet is…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:2610.42143 by the authors.

References

Works cited (42)

[11]

Y. Kats, Measuring polarization of light quarks at ATLAS and CMS , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 92, 071503(R) (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.071503, [hep-ph] 1505.06731

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[1]

A. F. Falk and M. E. Peskin, Production, decay, and polarization of excited heavy hadrons , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 49, 3320 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.49.3320, hep-ph/9308241

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[2]

J. G. K \"o rner, A. Pilaftsis and M. M. Tung, One-loop QCD mass effects in the production of polarized bottom and top quarks , Z.\ Phys.\ C 63, 575 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01557623, hep-ph/9311332

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[3]

B. Falk and L. M. Sehgal, Helicity flip bremsstrahlung. An equivalent particle description with applications , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 325, 509 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(94)90048-5

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90048-5 1994
[4]

ALEPH Collaboration , D. Buskulic et al., Measurement of polarization from Z decays , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 374, 319 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00300-0

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00300-0 1996
[5]

ALEPH Collaboration , Update of polarization from Z decays , contributed to the International Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics (EPS-HEP), Jerusalem, 1997, CERN-OPEN-99-328 https://cds.cern.ch/record/407920

View on Pith 1997
[6]

OPAL Collaboration , K. Ackerstaff et al., Polarization and forward-backward asymmetry of baryons in hadronic Z^0 decays , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 2, 49 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050123, hep-ex/9708027

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[7]

M. Burkardt and R. L. Jaffe, Polarized q fragmentation functions from e^+e^- X , Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 70, 2537 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2537, hep-ph/9302232

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[8]

R. L. Jaffe, Polarized 's in the current fragmentation region , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 54, R6581 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.R6581, hep-ph/9605456

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[9]

A. Kotzinian, A. Bravar and D. von Harrach, and polarization in lepton induced processes , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 2, 329 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050142, hep-ph/9701384

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[10]

C. Boros and Z.-T. Liang, Spin content of and its longitudinal polarization in e^+e^- annihilation at high energies , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 57, 4491 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4491, hep-ph/9803225

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[12]

G. Gustafson and J. H \"a kkinen, polarization in e^+e^- annihilation at the Z^0 pole , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 303, 350 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)91444-R

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91444-r 1993
[13]

D. de Florian, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, QCD analysis of unpolarized and polarized -baryon production in leading and next-to-leading order , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 57, 5811 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.5811, hep-ph/9711387

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[14]

Particle Data Group , F. Takahashi et al., Review of Particle Physics , Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A 41, 2630011 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X26300115

View on Pith doi:10.1142/s0217751x26300115 2026
[15]

ATLAS Collaboration , Measurement of the transverse polarization of and hyperons produced in proton--proton collisions at s =7 \,TeV using the ATLAS detector , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 91, 032004 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.032004, [hep-ex] 1412.1692

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[16]

Belle Collaboration , Y. Guan et al., Observation of transverse / hyperon polarization in e^+e^- annihilation at Belle , Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 122, 042001 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042001, [hep-ex] 1808.05000

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019
[17]

U. D'Alesio, F. Murgia and M. Zaccheddu, First extraction of the polarizing fragmentation function from Belle e^+e^- data , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 102, 054001 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054001, [hep-ph] 2003.01128

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[18]

D. Callos, Z.-B. Kang and J. Terry, Extracting the transverse momentum dependent polarizing fragmentation functions , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 102, 096007 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.096007, [hep-ph] 2003.04828

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[19]

M. Galanti, A. Giammanco, Y. Grossman, Y. Kats, E. Stamou and J. Zupan, Heavy baryons as polarimeters at colliders , JHEP 11, 067 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2015)067, [hep-ph] 1505.02771

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[20]

Y. Kats, Kinked tracks from ^+ baryons as a probe of light quark polarizations , JHEP 07, 018 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2023)018, [hep-ph] 2301.06188

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023
[21]

CMS Collaboration , SingleMuon and SingleElectron primary datasets from Run2016G and Run2016H of 2016 proton--proton collision data (UL2016) , CERN Open Data Portal (2024): SingleMuon MiniAODv2 (Run2016G), record 30513 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.1U19.1HLV; SingleElectron MiniAODv2 (Run2016G), record 30512 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.ALS...

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.1u19.1hlv 2024
[22]

CMS Collaboration , Simulated dataset TTToSemiLeptonic\_TuneCP5\_13TeV-powheg-pythia8 in MINIAODSIM (and NanoAODv9) format for 2016 collision data , CERN Open Data Portal (2024): MiniAODSIM, record 67992 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.Q3HE.C61G; NanoAODSIM, record 67993 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.4J3Y.1CME

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.q3he.c61g 2024
[23]

S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction , JHEP 09, 126 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126, [hep-ph] 0707.3088

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[24]

T. Sj \"o strand et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun. 191, 159 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, [hep-ph] 1410.3012

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015
[25]

CMS Collaboration , Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 80, 4 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, [hep-ex] 1903.12179

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[26]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders , Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun. 185, 2930 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021, [hep-ph] 1112.5675

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014
[27]

CMS Collaboration , Simulated dataset TTTo2L2Nu\_TuneCP5\_13TeV-powheg-pythia8 in MINIAODSIM (and NanoAODv9) format for 2016 collision data , CERN Open Data Portal (2024): MiniAODSIM, record 67800 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.1K33.SCDA; NanoAODSIM, record 67801 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.4RTG.JPI2

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.1k33.scda 2024
[28]

CMS Collaboration , Simulated single-top tW - and t -channel datasets (top and antitop; Powheg v2 + Pythia 8, CP5 tune) in MINIAODSIM and NanoAODv9 format for 2016 collision data , CERN Open Data Portal (2024). MiniAODSIM: tW (top), record 64880 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.5TBV.SAOE; tW (antitop), record 64824 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS...

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.5tbv.saoe 2024
[29]

CMS Collaboration , Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at s =13 \,TeV , JINST 13, P06015 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, [physics.ins-det] 1804.04528

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[30]

CMS Collaboration , Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC , JINST 16, P05014 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, [hep-ex] 2012.06888

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021
[31]

CMS Collaboration , Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13\,TeV , JINST 13, P05011 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, [physics.ins-det] 1712.07158

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018
[32]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti- k_t jet clustering algorithm , JHEP 04, 063 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, [hep-ph] 0802.1189

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[33]

CMS Collaboration , Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8\,TeV , JINST 12, P02014 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, [hep-ex] 1607.03663

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[34]

CMS Collaboration , Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector , JINST 12, P10003 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, [physics.ins-det] 1706.04965

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[35]

E. Bols, J. Kieseler, M. Verzetti, M. Stoye and A. Stakia, Jet flavour classification using DeepJet , JINST 15, P12012 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012, [hep-ex] 2008.10519

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020
[36]

CMS Collaboration , A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at s =13 \,TeV , JINST 17, P03014 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/17/03/P03014, [hep-ex] 2111.03027

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022
[37]

CMS Collaboration , CMS tracking performance results from early LHC operation , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 70, 1165 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1491-3, [physics.ins-det] 1007.1988

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[38]

CMS Collaboration , Strange particle production in pp collisions at s =0.9 and 7 \,TeV , JHEP 05, 064 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2011)064, [hep-ex] 1102.4282

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[39]

M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Pileup subtraction using jet areas , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 659, 119 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, [hep-ph] 0707.1378

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[40]

ALICE Collaboration , Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions , Nature Phys. 13, 535 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4111, [nucl-ex] 1606.07424

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017
[41]

CMS Collaboration , A. Tumasyan et al., The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Tracker , K. Klein (ed.), CERN-LHCC-2017-009, CMS-TDR-014 https://doi.org/10.17181/CERN.QZ28.FLHW (2017)

View on Pith doi:10.17181/cern.qz28.flhw 2017
[42]

CMS Collaboration , J. N. Butler and T. Tabarelli de Fatis , A MIP Timing Detector for the CMS Phase-2 Upgrade , CERN-LHCC-2019-003, CMS-TDR-020 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2667167 (2019)

View on Pith 2019

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [11]

Y. Kats, Measuring polarization of light quarks at ATLAS and CMS , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 92, 071503(R) (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.071503, [hep-ph] 1505.06731

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[2] [1]

A. F. Falk and M. E. Peskin, Production, decay, and polarization of excited heavy hadrons , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 49, 3320 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.49.3320, hep-ph/9308241

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[3] [2]

J. G. K \"o rner, A. Pilaftsis and M. M. Tung, One-loop QCD mass effects in the production of polarized bottom and top quarks , Z.\ Phys.\ C 63, 575 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01557623, hep-ph/9311332

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[4] [3]

B. Falk and L. M. Sehgal, Helicity flip bremsstrahlung. An equivalent particle description with applications , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 325, 509 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(94)90048-5

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90048-5 1994

[5] [4]

ALEPH Collaboration , D. Buskulic et al., Measurement of polarization from Z decays , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 374, 319 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00300-0

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00300-0 1996

[6] [5]

ALEPH Collaboration , Update of polarization from Z decays , contributed to the International Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics (EPS-HEP), Jerusalem, 1997, CERN-OPEN-99-328 https://cds.cern.ch/record/407920

View on Pith 1997

[7] [6]

OPAL Collaboration , K. Ackerstaff et al., Polarization and forward-backward asymmetry of baryons in hadronic Z^0 decays , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 2, 49 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050123, hep-ex/9708027

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[8] [7]

M. Burkardt and R. L. Jaffe, Polarized q fragmentation functions from e^+e^- X , Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 70, 2537 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.2537, hep-ph/9302232

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[9] [8]

R. L. Jaffe, Polarized 's in the current fragmentation region , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 54, R6581 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.R6581, hep-ph/9605456

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[10] [9]

A. Kotzinian, A. Bravar and D. von Harrach, and polarization in lepton induced processes , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 2, 329 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1007/s100520050142, hep-ph/9701384

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[11] [10]

C. Boros and Z.-T. Liang, Spin content of and its longitudinal polarization in e^+e^- annihilation at high energies , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 57, 4491 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4491, hep-ph/9803225

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[12] [12]

G. Gustafson and J. H \"a kkinen, polarization in e^+e^- annihilation at the Z^0 pole , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 303, 350 (1993) https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)91444-R

View on Pith doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)91444-r 1993

[13] [13]

D. de Florian, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, QCD analysis of unpolarized and polarized -baryon production in leading and next-to-leading order , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 57, 5811 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.5811, hep-ph/9711387

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[14] [14]

Particle Data Group , F. Takahashi et al., Review of Particle Physics , Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A 41, 2630011 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X26300115

View on Pith doi:10.1142/s0217751x26300115 2026

[15] [15]

ATLAS Collaboration , Measurement of the transverse polarization of and hyperons produced in proton--proton collisions at s =7 \,TeV using the ATLAS detector , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 91, 032004 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.032004, [hep-ex] 1412.1692

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[16] [16]

Belle Collaboration , Y. Guan et al., Observation of transverse / hyperon polarization in e^+e^- annihilation at Belle , Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. 122, 042001 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042001, [hep-ex] 1808.05000

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2019

[17] [17]

U. D'Alesio, F. Murgia and M. Zaccheddu, First extraction of the polarizing fragmentation function from Belle e^+e^- data , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 102, 054001 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054001, [hep-ph] 2003.01128

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[18] [18]

D. Callos, Z.-B. Kang and J. Terry, Extracting the transverse momentum dependent polarizing fragmentation functions , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 102, 096007 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.096007, [hep-ph] 2003.04828

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[19] [19]

M. Galanti, A. Giammanco, Y. Grossman, Y. Kats, E. Stamou and J. Zupan, Heavy baryons as polarimeters at colliders , JHEP 11, 067 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2015)067, [hep-ph] 1505.02771

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[20] [20]

Y. Kats, Kinked tracks from ^+ baryons as a probe of light quark polarizations , JHEP 07, 018 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2023)018, [hep-ph] 2301.06188

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2023

[21] [21]

CMS Collaboration , SingleMuon and SingleElectron primary datasets from Run2016G and Run2016H of 2016 proton--proton collision data (UL2016) , CERN Open Data Portal (2024): SingleMuon MiniAODv2 (Run2016G), record 30513 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.1U19.1HLV; SingleElectron MiniAODv2 (Run2016G), record 30512 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.ALS...

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.1u19.1hlv 2024

[22] [22]

CMS Collaboration , Simulated dataset TTToSemiLeptonic\_TuneCP5\_13TeV-powheg-pythia8 in MINIAODSIM (and NanoAODv9) format for 2016 collision data , CERN Open Data Portal (2024): MiniAODSIM, record 67992 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.Q3HE.C61G; NanoAODSIM, record 67993 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.4J3Y.1CME

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.q3he.c61g 2024

[23] [23]

S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction , JHEP 09, 126 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126, [hep-ph] 0707.3088

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[24] [24]

T. Sj \"o strand et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 , Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun. 191, 159 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024, [hep-ph] 1410.3012

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2015

[25] [25]

CMS Collaboration , Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 80, 4 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4, [hep-ex] 1903.12179

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[26] [26]

M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders , Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun. 185, 2930 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021, [hep-ph] 1112.5675

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2014

[27] [27]

CMS Collaboration , Simulated dataset TTTo2L2Nu\_TuneCP5\_13TeV-powheg-pythia8 in MINIAODSIM (and NanoAODv9) format for 2016 collision data , CERN Open Data Portal (2024): MiniAODSIM, record 67800 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.1K33.SCDA; NanoAODSIM, record 67801 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.4RTG.JPI2

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.1k33.scda 2024

[28] [28]

CMS Collaboration , Simulated single-top tW - and t -channel datasets (top and antitop; Powheg v2 + Pythia 8, CP5 tune) in MINIAODSIM and NanoAODv9 format for 2016 collision data , CERN Open Data Portal (2024). MiniAODSIM: tW (top), record 64880 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS.5TBV.SAOE; tW (antitop), record 64824 https://doi.org/10.7483/OPENDATA.CMS...

View on Pith doi:10.7483/opendata.cms.5tbv.saoe 2024

[29] [29]

CMS Collaboration , Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at s =13 \,TeV , JINST 13, P06015 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, [physics.ins-det] 1804.04528

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[30] [30]

CMS Collaboration , Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC , JINST 16, P05014 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, [hep-ex] 2012.06888

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2021

[31] [31]

CMS Collaboration , Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13\,TeV , JINST 13, P05011 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, [physics.ins-det] 1712.07158

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2018

[32] [32]

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti- k_t jet clustering algorithm , JHEP 04, 063 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063, [hep-ph] 0802.1189

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[33] [33]

CMS Collaboration , Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8\,TeV , JINST 12, P02014 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, [hep-ex] 1607.03663

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[34] [34]

CMS Collaboration , Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector , JINST 12, P10003 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, [physics.ins-det] 1706.04965

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[35] [35]

E. Bols, J. Kieseler, M. Verzetti, M. Stoye and A. Stakia, Jet flavour classification using DeepJet , JINST 15, P12012 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012, [hep-ex] 2008.10519

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2020

[36] [36]

CMS Collaboration , A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at s =13 \,TeV , JINST 17, P03014 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/17/03/P03014, [hep-ex] 2111.03027

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2022

[37] [37]

CMS Collaboration , CMS tracking performance results from early LHC operation , Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C 70, 1165 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1491-3, [physics.ins-det] 1007.1988

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[38] [38]

CMS Collaboration , Strange particle production in pp collisions at s =0.9 and 7 \,TeV , JHEP 05, 064 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2011)064, [hep-ex] 1102.4282

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[39] [39]

M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Pileup subtraction using jet areas , Phys.\ Lett.\ B 659, 119 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, [hep-ph] 0707.1378

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[40] [40]

ALICE Collaboration , Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions , Nature Phys. 13, 535 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4111, [nucl-ex] 1606.07424

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2017

[41] [41]

CMS Collaboration , A. Tumasyan et al., The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Tracker , K. Klein (ed.), CERN-LHCC-2017-009, CMS-TDR-014 https://doi.org/10.17181/CERN.QZ28.FLHW (2017)

View on Pith doi:10.17181/cern.qz28.flhw 2017

[42] [42]

CMS Collaboration , J. N. Butler and T. Tabarelli de Fatis , A MIP Timing Detector for the CMS Phase-2 Upgrade , CERN-LHCC-2019-003, CMS-TDR-020 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2667167 (2019)

View on Pith 2019