Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 105 references

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

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 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.

desk verdict 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. read the letter →

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

CMS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords HiggsbosonWWdecayboostedregimejetsubstructuretransformertaggerLundplanesignalstrengthsimplifiedtemplatecrosssections
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

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.

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

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

Extended reading notes

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

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.

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, 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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 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).
assumptions (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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for Higgs boson production at high transverse momentum in the WW decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6VOCG6HS

@misc{pith2026260322233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for Higgs boson production at high transverse momentum in the WW decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6VOCG6HS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.22233}
}
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 the authors.

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. 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. 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 ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
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]
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 SR…
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 …
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…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observed scan of the profile likelihood test statistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
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]
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]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  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

    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

    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

    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]

    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

    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

    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

    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

    arXiv 2014

Show all 105 references
  1. [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

    2015 arXiv

  2. [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

    2017 arXiv

  3. [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

    2014 arXiv

  4. [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

    2017 arXiv

  5. [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

    2019 arXiv

  6. [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

    2023 arXiv

  7. [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

    2021 arXiv

  8. [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

    2022 arXiv

  9. [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

    2023 arXiv

  10. [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

    2018 arXiv

  11. [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

    2020 arXiv

  12. [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

    2026 arXiv

  13. [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

    2022 arXiv

  14. [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

    2024 arXiv

  15. [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

    2024

  16. [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

    2015 arXiv

  17. [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

  18. [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

  19. [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

    2022 arXiv

  20. [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

    2017 arXiv

  21. [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

  22. [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

    2020 arXiv

  23. [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

    2020 arXiv

  24. [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

    2017 arXiv

  25. [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

  26. [34]

    HEPData record for this analysis

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

    2026 doi

  27. [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

    2008 doi

  28. [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

    2024 arXiv

  29. [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

    2020 arXiv

  30. [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

    2017 arXiv

  31. [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

    2024 arXiv

  32. [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

    2021 arXiv

  33. [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

    2018 arXiv

  34. [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

    2014 arXiv

  35. [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

    2013 arXiv

  36. [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

    2018 arXiv

  37. [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

    2010 arXiv

  38. [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

    2013 arXiv

  39. [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

    2015 arXiv

  40. [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

    2010 arXiv

  41. [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

    2012 arXiv

  42. [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

    2015 arXiv

  43. [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

    2014 arXiv

  44. [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

    2009 arXiv

  45. [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

    2019 arXiv

  46. [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

    2008 arXiv

  47. [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

    2008 arXiv

  48. [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

    2013 arXiv

  49. [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

    2012 arXiv

  50. [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

    2015 arXiv

  51. [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

    2016 arXiv

  52. [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

    2015 arXiv

  53. [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

    2017 arXiv

  54. [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

    2004 arXiv

  55. [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

    2007 arXiv

  56. [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

    2012 arXiv

  57. [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]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [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

    2012 arXiv

  59. [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

    2010 arXiv

  60. [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

    2020 arXiv

  61. [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

    2017 arXiv

  62. [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

    2003 doi

  63. [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

    2006

  64. [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

    2017 arXiv

  65. [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

  66. [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

    2008 arXiv

  67. [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

    2012 arXiv

  68. [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

    2020 arXiv

  69. [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

    2014 arXiv

  70. [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

    2017 arXiv

  71. [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

  72. [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

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Soft drop

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,JHEP05(2014) 146, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146,arXiv:1402.2657

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST20(2025) P11006, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/11/P11006,arXiv:2510.10228

    2025

  75. [83]

    Jet flavour classification using DeepJet

    E. Bols et al., “Jet flavour classification using DeepJet”,JINST15(2020) P12012, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012,arXiv:2008.10519

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb −1 of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb −1 of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2018-058, 2018

    2018

  77. [85]

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

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

    2015 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC

    K. Rehermann and B. Tweedie, “Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC”,JHEP03(2011) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2011)059, arXiv:1007.2221

    2011 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Accelerating resonance searches via signature-oriented pre-training

    C. Li et al., “Accelerating resonance searches via signature-oriented pre-training”, 2024. arXiv:2405.12972

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE”, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8(2024) 19,doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4, arXiv:2404.06614

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    A method for correcting the substructure of multiprong jets using the Lund jet plane

    CMS Collaboration, “A method for correcting the substructure of multiprong jets using the Lund jet plane”,JHEP11(2025) 038,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)038, arXiv:2507.07775

    2025

  82. [90]

    The Lund jet plane

    F. A. Dreyer, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The Lund jet plane”,JHEP12(2018) 064, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)064,arXiv:1807.04758

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Longitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, “Longitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions”,Nucl. Phys. B406(1993) 187, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90166-M

    1993 doi

  84. [92]

    Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions

    S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, “Successive combination jet algorithm for hadron collisions”, Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 3160,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.3160, arXiv:hep-ph/9305266

    1993 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Jet trimming

    D. Krohn, J. Thaler, and L.-T. Wang, “Jet trimming”,JHEP02(2010) 084, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)084,arXiv:0912.1342. 32

    2010 arXiv

  86. [94]

    On the interpretation ofχ 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P

    R. A. Fisher, “On the interpretation ofχ 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P”,J. R. Stat. Soc.85(1922) 87,doi:10.2307/2340521

    1922 doi

  87. [95]

    Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B791(2019) 96, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073,arXiv:1806.05246

    2019 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011

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

    2011

  89. [97]

    Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at√s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2018) 161,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613

    2018 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Calibration of the top and W jet tagging efficiency in 13 TeV data collected by the CMS experiment in 2016–2018

    CMS Collaboration, “Calibration of the top and W jet tagging efficiency in 13 TeV data collected by the CMS experiment in 2016–2018”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2025-010, 2025

    2016

  91. [99]

    Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples

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

    1993 doi

  92. [100]

    Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra

    J. S. Conway, “Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra”, inPHYSTAT 2011, volume 1, p. 115. 2011.arXiv:1103.0354. doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-006.115

    2011 arXiv

  93. [101]

    The RooFit toolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. P . Kirkby, “The RooFit toolkit for data modeling”, inProceedings of the 13th International Conference for Computing in High-Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP03), L. Lyons and M. Karagoz, eds. 2003.arXiv:physics/0306116

    2003 arXiv

  94. [102]

    The RooStats Project

    L. Moneta et al., “The RooStats Project”, inProceedings of 13th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis T echniques in Physics Research — PoS(ACAT2010), T. Speer et al., eds., p. 057. 2011.arXiv:1009.1003.doi:10.22323/1.093.0057

    2011 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 212, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7,arXiv:1412.8662

    2015 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0,arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z]

    2011 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Measurement of boosted Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion or gluon fusion in the H→b b decay mode using LHC proton-proton collision data at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of boosted Higgs bosons produced via vector boson fusion or gluon fusion in the H→b b decay mode using LHC proton-proton collision data at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP12(2024) 035,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)035, arXiv:2407.08012. 33 A The CMS Collaboration Yere...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.