Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A search for heavy resonances decaying into two Higgs bosons in the bbτ+τ− final state finds no signal and sets the most stringent limits yet on resonant Higgs-pair production between 1.4 and 4.5 TeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:13 UTC pith:AKUNQTVA

load-bearing objection Credible, incremental CMS result: most sensitive HH->bbttau limits for 1.4-4.5 TeV with a useful new boosted-tau tagger; the top-background shape transfer from sideband to signal region deserves a closure test before the limits are taken at face value. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2601.20011 v2 pith:AKUNQTVA submitted 2026-01-27 hep-ex

Search for heavy resonances decaying into two Higgs bosons in the mathrm{bbar{b}}τ^+τ^- final state in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords heavy resonance searchHiggs boson pair productionbb tautau final stateboosted tau reconstructionjet tagging95% confidence level limitsproton-proton collisions at 13 TeVspin-0 and spin-2 resonances
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish whether a heavy, narrow new particle X could decay into a pair of Higgs bosons and show up in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. Using events where one Higgs decays to bottom quarks and the other to tau leptons, the analysis covers X masses from 1 to 4.5 TeV. The observed events match standard-model background predictions, so no such resonance is claimed. Instead, 95% confidence upper limits rule out production cross sections from roughly 62 fb at 1 TeV down to 4 fb at 4.5 TeV for a spin-0 resonance, and similar values for spin-2. These are the most sensitive bounds available in this final state in the 1.4–4.5 TeV range, tightening what was previously excluded.

Core claim

With 138 fb−1 of data, the observed events are consistent with standard-model background expectations, so the search excludes a narrow resonance decaying to two Higgs bosons in this final state. The analysis sets 95% confidence-level upper limits on X→HH production for spin-0 and spin-2 hypotheses. At 1 TeV the observed (expected) limits are 62.2 fb (76.2 fb) for spin-0 and 42.5 fb (51.8 fb) for spin-2; at 4.5 TeV they are 3.8 fb (2.0 fb) and 3.2 fb (1.7 fb), respectively. This is the most sensitive result to date for X→HH→bbτ+τ− in the 1.4–4.5 TeV mass range.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on two boosted-object reconstruction tools. The H→bb candidate is reconstructed as one large-radius jet and tagged by a graph-neural-network jet tagger that also regresses the jet mass, defining a signal region (100–150 GeV) and adjacent sidebands. The H→ττ candidate is reconstructed either as two resolved taus or as boosted tau pairs, identified by a dedicated neural-network tagger trained to separate genuine boosted taus from jets. The final discriminant is the reconstructed invariant mass MX of the Higgs-pair system, built from the jet and a kinematic fit that recovers the tau-pair four-momentum. The dominant top-quark background is constrained by fitting MX in the side

Load-bearing premise

The top-quark background's MX shape is assumed to be identical in the Higgs-mass sidebands and the signal region, so if the region selection changes the mix of top-decay topologies, the background estimate would be biased.

What would settle it

Measure the reconstructed MX distribution of simulated top-quark events after applying the sideband and signal-region categories separately; if the two shapes differ by more than the quoted uncertainties at any MX bin, the background-anchoring assumption is falsified. A data control sample enriched in top-quark events that passes the full selection except the H→bb mass cut could test the same shape agreement directly.

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

If this is right

  • If the background model is correct, resonant Higgs-pair production via a narrow spin-0 or spin-2 state is excluded in the 1–4.5 TeV mass range down to cross sections of a few fb.
  • Models with warped extra dimensions, including radions and Kaluza–Klein gravitons, are constrained whenever their predicted cross sections exceed these limits.
  • The result is the most sensitive to date in the bbτ+τ− final state between 1.4 and 4.5 TeV, improving on earlier resolved and boosted searches.
  • The demonstration that boosted tau pairs can be tagged efficiently at high transverse momentum opens this final state for future searches at higher energies or luminosities.
  • The background model provides a reference for future data-taking periods, against which any emerging excess in the high-mass bins can be evaluated.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to re-examine the highest-MX bins with more data, since the paper notes that observed limits lie above expected limits above 2.5 TeV because of events in the final bin.
  • The sideband-constrained top-quark background assumes a common MX shape across the H→bb mass regions; a dedicated closure test on simulated top-quark events with different decay topologies would reveal whether that assumption hides a bias.
  • The same boosted-tau and jet-tagging machinery could be turned toward non-resonant Higgs-pair searches, potentially improving sensitivity to the standard-model HH continuum.
  • The 20% normalization uncertainty on boosted tau identification suggests that better calibration of that tagger could translate directly into stronger exclusion limits, particularly in the clean τhτh channel.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a search for narrow heavy resonances X decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons in the b b τ+τ− final state, using 138 fb−1 of CMS proton-proton collision data at 13 TeV. The analysis reconstructs H→bb with a single large-radius jet and the H→τ+τ− system in either the fully hadronic or semileptonic tau decay channels. A profile-likelihood fit to the reconstructed X mass (M_X) is used to set 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for spin-0 and spin-2 narrow resonances with masses between 1 and 4.5 TeV. The observed data are found to be consistent with standard model background expectations. The reported observed (expected) limits range from 62.2 fb (76.2 fb) at 1 TeV to 3.8 fb (2.0 fb) at 4.5 TeV for spin-0, and from 42.5 fb (51.8 fb) to 3.2 fb (1.7 fb) for spin-2. The authors claim the most sensitive limits to date in this channel for resonance masses from 1.4 to 4.5 TeV.

Significance. If the results are correct, this analysis would provide the strongest current constraints on resonant HH production in the b b τ+τ− final state at high mass, extending the reach beyond previous CMS and ATLAS searches and exploiting the full Run 2 dataset. The paper is written in the standard CMS style with a detailed systematic-uncertainty table, a clear statistical methodology, and tabulated results in HEPData. The use of a dedicated boosted-tau tagger and a ParticleNet-based merged b-jet tagger is a technical advance. However, the central limit-setting procedure relies on a background-estimation assumption for the dominant top-quark background that is not validated in the text, and this assumption directly affects the reported cross-section limits.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 6 (Background estimation)] The dominant background after full selection is tt + single-top production (stated in the first paragraph of Sec. 6). The M_X prediction for this background in the signal region (SR, 100<M_H(bb)<150 GeV) is obtained by introducing unconstrained, bin-by-bin multiplicative parameters that simultaneously scale the top-quark yield in each M_X bin of the SR and the sideband (SB, M_H(bb)<100 or >150 GeV). This procedure forces the fitted SR/SB ratio per M_X bin to equal the nominal simulated ratio, i.e. it assumes the M_X shape of the top background is identical in SR and SB up to a common per-bin factor. No closure test, control-region validation, or systematic assignment is presented to test this assumption. If the M_H(bb) categorization selects different tt decay topologies, or if the ParticleNet regressed mass correlates with M_X differently in the two regions, the predicted top-quark back
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 8 (Results)] The text explains that observed limits are higher than expected above 2.5 TeV 'primarily because of the excess of events visible in the highest bin of Fig. 4 (left)'. The local (and global) significance of this excess is not reported. Given that the observed/expected limit ratio reaches roughly 1.9 at 4.5 TeV, the reader should be able to assess whether this is a significant deviation.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract reads 'single large jet' where 'large-radius jet' or 'AK8 jet' would be more precise and consistent with the body of the paper.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The definition of 'Pull' in the lower panels is not given. Please state explicitly that the pull is (data - prediction) divided by the total uncertainty, and specify which uncertainty (post-fit) is used.
  4. [Section 7, Table 1] The first row reports 'Boosted τh lepton identification' with 20% variation for τhτh and 10% for ℓτh. It is unclear whether this systematic is applied to both signal and background and whether it is correlated across channels. A one-sentence clarification would help.
  5. [Section 1 / Section 8] When claiming the 'most sensitive limits to date in the mass range of 1.4 to 4.5 TeV', the comparison with existing ATLAS searches [14,15] should explicitly note the mass coverage of those searches; in particular, above 3 TeV there may be no previous result in this final state, which matters for interpreting the reach of the new limits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central limits are extracted from a direct maximum-likelihood fit to observed collision data, with disclosed data-driven background constraints and signal templates from simulation.

full rationale

The paper's central result is an experimental measurement: upper limits on resonant HH production are obtained by fitting the reconstructed MX distribution in data with a signal-plus-background model. The signal templates are generated from MC simulation of spin-0 and spin-2 resonances; the dominant top-quark background is constrained using data in the MH(bb) sidebands via unconstrained bin-by-bin multiplicative parameters that act simultaneously on SR and SB. This is a data-driven background estimation technique, not a circular reduction: the background parameters are not defined in terms of the signal prediction, and the fit retains the freedom to prefer an excess as a signal. The sideband-to-SR shape transfer is a statistical modeling assumption that could be a systematic concern, but it is not circular reasoning and does not make the measured limits equivalent to the analysis inputs. The paper's self-citations are to detector performance and previous searches; they are not load-bearing for the claimed exclusion, which is benchmarked against independent ATLAS results. The data agree with background expectations and the limits are computed with the standard CLs procedure using pseudo-experiments. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no self-citation chain is used to force the conclusion, and no known result is repackaged under new coordinates. The analysis is self-contained as a direct search in collision data, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis is a measurement; the free parameters are data-driven background and calibration terms. The axioms are the standard detector/MC modeling assumptions plus the SR/SB shape-sharing assumption, which is the most analysis-specific and load-bearing.

free parameters (2)
  • Top quark background yields per M_X bin = not reported (unconstrained fit)
    Section 6: unconstrained bin-by-bin multiplicative parameters for the top quark background, fitted to data simultaneously in the SR and SB per M_X bin.
  • Boosted tau identification scale factor = 0.90 per boosted tau
    Section 7: derived from a mu-tau signal region and dimuon control region fit, with 10% uncertainty, leading to 20% (tau_h tau_h) and 10% (l tau_h) normalization uncertainties.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Top quark M_X shape is identical in the M_H(bb) signal region and sideband after categorization
    Section 6: shared unconstrained bin-by-bin yields assume the M_X shape of the top background is the same in SR and SB; if the M_H(bb) window selects different tt topologies, the background estimate could be biased.
  • domain assumption Simulated signal samples (LO MadGraph, narrow 1 MeV width, PYTHIA shower, NNPDF3.1) are accurate enough for signal templates
    Section 3: signal kinematics and acceptance are modeled with LO simulation; scale/PDF uncertainties are assigned, but the modeling itself is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption FASTMTT with collinear approximation reconstructs the di-tau system without bias in the boosted regime
    Sections 4-5: the di-tau mass reconstruction assumes neutrinos are collinear with visible tau decay products; this approximation may degrade resolution for highly boosted taus, though resolution is handled in the fit.
  • domain assumption Detector simulation and correction factors (trigger, lepton, tau, b-tagging) describe data after assigned systematics
    Sections 3 and 7: data-to-simulation corrections derived from control samples are assumed to apply in the signal region; standard CMS practice, but not verified in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37941 in / 11673 out tokens · 123498 ms · 2026-08-04T06:13:48.916940+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search is presented for massive narrow-width resonances in the mass range of 1$-$4.5 TeV, decaying into pairs of Higgs bosons (HH). The search uses proton-proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC during 2016$-$2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The analysis targets final states where one Higgs boson decays into a pair of bottom quarks and the other into a pair of tau leptons, X $\to$ HH $\to$ $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}\tau^+\tau^-$. It uses a single large radius jet to reconstruct the H $\to$ $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$ decay, while the H $\to$ $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay products can either be contained within a single large radius jet or appear as two isolated tau leptons. The observed data are consistent with standard model background expectations. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the production cross section for resonant HH production for masses between 1 and 4.5 TeV. This analysis sets the most sensitive limits to date on X $\to$ HH $\to$ $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}\tau^+\tau^-$ decays in the mass range of 1.4 to 4.5 TeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20011 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A representative diagram for the production of a spin-0 radion or a spin-2 graviton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distribution of the invariant mass of the di- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of MH(bb) obtained from the leading AK8 jet in the event after the full event selection for the τh τh (left) and ℓτh (right) channels. The signal-enriched region (SR) is defined as 100 < MH(bb) < 150 GeV. The sideband (SB) is immediately adjacent to the SR, on either side. The data (solid circles) are compared to the background simulation (filled histograms), where the gray bands represent the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Post-fit reconstructed mass distribution of resonance X in the SR (left) and SB (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the production cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Study of ZZ and ZH production in the bb$\tau\tau$ final state and search for high-mass spin-0 and spin-1 resonances in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

    hep-ex 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    CMS sets 95% CL upper limits on σ(X)B(X→ZZ) (300 pb–24 fb) and σ(Z')B(Z'→ZH) (0.4 pb–12 fb) for resonances up to 6 TeV in the bbττ channel with no SM deviation observed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Evidence for the spin-0 nature of the Higgs boson using ATLAS data

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence for the spin-0 nature of the Higgs boson using ATLAS data”,Phys. Lett. B726(2013) 120,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.026, arXiv:1307.1432

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    What is the Hierarchy Problem?

    M. E. Peskin, “What is the Hierarchy Problem?”,Nucl. Phys. B1018(2025) 116971, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116971,arXiv:2505.00694

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3370,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    An alternative to compactification

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactification”,Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 4690,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690,arXiv:hep-th/9906064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  8. [8]

    Modulus stabilization with bulk fields

    W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, “Modulus stabilization with bulk fields”,Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 4922,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4922, arXiv:hep-ph/9907447. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  9. [9]

    Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity

    O. DeWolfe, D. Freedman, S. S. Gubser, and A. Karch, “Modeling the fifth dimension with scalars and gravity”,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 046008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.046008,arXiv:hep-th/9909134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization

    C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall, and J. Terning, “Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization”,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 045015, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.045015,arXiv:hep-ph/9911406

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  11. [11]

    Phenomenology of the Randall–Sundrum gauge hierarchy model

    H. Davoudiasl, J. Hewett, and T. Rizzo, “Phenomenology of the Randall–Sundrum gauge hierarchy model”,Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000) 2080, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2080,arXiv:hep-ph/9909255

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  12. [12]

    Warped gravitons at the CERN LHC and beyond

    K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni, “Warped gravitons at the CERN LHC and beyond”,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 036006,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.036006, arXiv:hep-ph/0701186

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Search for heavy resonances decaying into two Higgs bosons or into a Higgs boson and a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy resonances decaying into two Higgs bosons or into a Higgs boson and a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”,JHEP01 (2019) 051,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)051,arXiv:1808.01365

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Reconstruction and identification of boosted di-τsystems in a search for Higgs boson pairs using 13 TeV proton-proton collision data in ATLAS

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification of boosted di-τsystems in a search for Higgs boson pairs using 13 TeV proton-proton collision data in ATLAS”,JHEP 11(2020) 163,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2020)163,arXiv:2007.14811

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the bbτ +τ − decay channel using 13 TeV pp collision data from the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for resonant and non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the bbτ +τ − decay channel using 13 TeV pp collision data from the ATLAS detector”,JHEP07(2023) 040,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)040, arXiv:2209.10910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    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 Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016. doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002,arXiv:1610.07922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Review of particle physics

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  18. [18]

    Jet tagging via particle clouds

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Search for narrow high-mass resonances in proton-proton collisions at √s=8 TeV decaying to Z and Higgs bosons

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for narrow high-mass resonances in proton-proton collisions at √s=8 TeV decaying to Z and Higgs bosons”,Phys. Lett. B748(2015) 255, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.011,arXiv:1502.04994

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network”,JINST17(2022) P07023,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/07/P07023, arXiv:2201.08458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.166218

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.166218 2026

  22. [22]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

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

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

  23. [23]

    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. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    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. doi:10.17181/CERN.VU8I.D59J

    doi:10.17181/cern.vu8i.d59j 2015

  28. [28]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  29. [29]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW

    M. Czakon et al., “Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW”, JHEP10(2017) 186,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)186,arXiv:1705.04105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”,JHEP07 (2014) 079,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079,arXiv:1405.0301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions”,JHEP01(2007) 013, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013,arXiv:hep-ph/0611129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Electroweak corrections to W+jet hadroproduction including leptonic W-boson decays

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. Muck, “Electroweak corrections to W+jet hadroproduction including leptonic W-boson decays”,JHEP08(2009) 075, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/075,arXiv:0906.1656

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    Electroweak corrections to dilepton+jet production at hadron colliders

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. Muck, “Electroweak corrections to dilepton+jet production at hadron colliders”,JHEP06(2011) 069, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)069,arXiv:1103.0914

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  35. [35]

    Electroweak corrections to monojet production at the LHC

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, T. Kasprzik, and A. Maeck, “Electroweak corrections to monojet production at the LHC”,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2297, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2297-x,arXiv:1211.5078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Electroweak corrections to hadronic photon production at large transverse momenta

    J. H. Kuhn, A. Kulesza, S. Pozzorini, and M. Schulze, “Electroweak corrections to hadronic photon production at large transverse momenta”,JHEP03(2006) 059, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/059,arXiv:hep-ph/0508253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    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. References 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [40]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    Merging meets matching inMC@NLO

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  45. [45]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    FASTJETuser manual

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Pileup per particle identification

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [50]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P10005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005,arXiv:1809.02816

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, “Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering”, inProc. Workshop on Monte Carlo generators for HERA physics, Hamburg, Germany. 1998.arXiv:hep-ph/9907280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  53. [53]

    Reconstruction and identification ofτlepton decays to hadrons and ντ at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Reconstruction and identification ofτlepton decays to hadrons and ντ at CMS”,JINST7(2012) P01001,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/01/P01001, arXiv:1109.6034. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [54]

    Performance of boosted tau lepton identification with DeepTau Framework (Boosted DeepTau)

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of boosted tau lepton identification with DeepTau Framework (Boosted DeepTau)”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2025-047, 2025

    2025

  55. [55]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√s=7 TeV”,JINST7(2012) P10002,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  57. [57]

    Soft drop

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Tau-pair invariant mass estimation using maximum likelihood estimation and collinear approximation

    W. Matyszkiewicz and A. Kalinowski, “Tau-pair invariant mass estimation using maximum likelihood estimation and collinear approximation”,Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 18(2025) 5,doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.18.5-A21

    doi:10.5506/aphyspolbsupp.18.5-a21 2025

  59. [59]

    Higgs decay toτ +τ −: A possible signature of intermediate mass Higgs bosons at high energy hadron colliders

    R. K. Ellis, I. Hinchliffe, M. Soldate, and J. J. van der Bij, “Higgs decay toτ +τ −: A possible signature of intermediate mass Higgs bosons at high energy hadron colliders”, Nucl. Phys. B297(1988) 221,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90019-3

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90019-3 1988

  60. [60]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:COMBINE

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    The ROOFITtoolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, “The ROOFITtoolkit for data modeling”, inProc. 13th In. Conf. on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2003): La Jolla CA, United States, March 24–28. 2003.arXiv:physics/0306116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  62. [62]

    The ROOSTATSproject

    L. Moneta et al., “The ROOSTATSproject”, inProc. 13th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT 2010): Jaipur, India, February 22–27. 2010.arXiv:1009.1003. [PoS (ACAT2010) 057]. doi:10.22323/1.093.0057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [63]

    Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 800, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2,arXiv:2104.01927

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  64. [64]

    Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV with the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-20-001, 2025

    2025

  65. [65]

    Parton distributions for the LHC run II

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”,JHEP04(2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040,arXiv:1410.8849

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II

    J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II”,J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001,arXiv:1510.03865

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    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. References 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  68. [68]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011,arXiv:1712.07158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples

    R. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”,Comput. Phys. Commun.77(1993) 219,doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W. 20 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria W. Adam , L. Benato , T. Bergauer , M. Dragicevic ...

    doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-w 1993