Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Measuring the Higgs boson with top quarks in the tau-tau channel: the ttH signal strength is measured at 1.51 times the Standard Model prediction, with the first tH constraint in this final state, both consistent with the Standard Model.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:37 UTC pith:NZTWEQDC

load-bearing objection Competent incremental ATLAS measurement: first tH extraction in fully hadronic H→tautau plus a combined Run2+Run3 ttH result; the fake-factor transfer deserves a closer look but is not fatal. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27276 v1 pith:NZTWEQDC submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ex

Study of tbar{t}H and tH production in the Htoττ channel in pp collisions at sqrt{s}=13 TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords top quark Yukawa couplingttH productiontH productionH to tau tau decayfully hadronic final statesignal strengthsimplified template cross-sectionLHC Run 2 and Run 3
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 the strength of the Higgs boson's coupling to the top quark by measuring two production processes, ttH (Higgs produced with a top-antitop pair) and tH (Higgs with a single top), in events where both the Higgs's tau-lepton pair and the top quarks decay fully hadronically. Using 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data and 161 fb^-1 of 13.6 TeV data, it finds the ttH signal strength—the measured rate divided by the Standard Model prediction—to be 1.51 with an uncertainty of about ±0.65, corresponding to an observed significance of 2.6 standard deviations (1.8 expected). The tH signal strength is measured for the first time in this channel and is -0.4^{+5.6}_{-5.1}, consistent with the Standard Model but too imprecise to discriminate. If the result holds, the top Yukawa coupling measured through direct ttH production in the tau-tau final state is compatible with the Standard Model, and the new tH constraint adds a probe of the relative phase between the top-quark and W-boson couplings to the Higgs boson.

Core claim

The paper claims that in the fully hadronic H → ττ channel, using the full Run 2 dataset at 13 TeV plus the Run 3 dataset at 13.6 TeV, the simultaneous measurement of ttH and tH production yields signal strengths of μ_ttH = 1.51^{+0.71}_{-0.62} and μ_tH = -0.4^{+5.6}_{-5.1} with a -34% correlation. The compatibility of the two-parameter fit with the Standard Model is 84%, the observed (expected) significance for ttH is 2.6 (1.8) standard deviations, and the tH result is consistent with previous ATLAS measurements in other channels. The ttH cross-section is also measured differentially in three bins of the Higgs boson transverse momentum within the simplified template cross-section framework,

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a multiclass boosted decision tree that classifies events into ttH, tH, Z→ττ, and ttbar categories using kinematic variables that include the di-tau invariant mass reconstructed by the Missing Mass Calculator. The background from jets misidentified as hadronic taus is estimated with a fake-factor method, where fake factors are measured in W+jets control regions and applied to inverted-identification data. A single profile likelihood fit over all signal and control regions extracts the two signal strengths simultaneously, with the Z→ττ and ttbar backgrounds normalised to data in dedicated control regions. Tau identification uses a new transformer-based graph neural

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the assumption that the simulated BDT score shapes remain correct in the signal regions after normalising the dominant backgrounds in control regions, and that the tau misidentification rates measured in W+jets events also hold where the signal lives.

What would settle it

Run the same profile likelihood fit after shifting the misidentified-tau background by the +10% discrepancy seen in the same-charge validation region, or after reweighting the tau identification efficiency to data-measured values for GNTau rather than using the previous algorithm's systematics; if the best-fit μ_ttH moves outside the quoted 68% confidence interval, the central result is biased, while if it stays within, the claim is robust.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the ttH rate in the tau-tau fully hadronic final state confirms the Standard Model top-quark Yukawa coupling at the roughly 40% precision of this channel, in line with other ttH measurements.
  • The first tH constraint in this channel, although weak, provides an additional input for combined fits probing the relative phase between the top-quark and W-boson couplings to the Higgs boson, which is sensitive to CP violation.
  • The differential measurement in bins of the Higgs transverse momentum offers a direct check of models with anomalous top-Higgs couplings or modified Higgs self-coupling.
  • Demonstrating that a fully hadronic final state can be used for ttH and tH analyses opens the door for this channel to be included in future global combinations, potentially improving the precision of the top Yukawa coupling at the High-Luminosity LHC.
  • The observed ttH significance being higher than expected suggests that, as more Run 3 data accumulate, the measured signal strength may drift toward the Standard Model value of 1.0.
  • The measured tH signal strength being negative (though compatible with zero) indicates that the current data cannot establish a positive tH rate; future use of this channel will effectively treat it as an upper limit rather than a signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A shift of the best-fit ttH signal strength toward 1.0 is plausible once more Run 3 data are added, because the observed significance (2.6σ) is well above the expected (1.8σ); the 84% SM compatibility already signals no real tension.
  • The tH measurement's central value is negative, which is unphysical for a cross-section; this likely reflects a downward statistical fluctuation or background over-subtraction, and future combinations should treat it as an upper limit rather than a positive signal.
  • The 10% agreement between the fake-factor estimate and the same-charge validation region is promising, but the fake factors are measured in W+jets phase space; a dedicated ABCD-style closure test inside the signal region would directly probe the weakest link.
  • Since this is the first use of GNTau in an ATLAS analysis, the systematic uncertainties for tau identification were inherited from the previous RNN algorithm; deriving them from data via tag-and-probe in Z→ττ events would harden the result.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of ttH and tH production in the H→ττ decay channel with fully hadronic final states, using 140 fb−1 of 13 TeV and 161 fb−1 of 13.6 TeV ATLAS data. Events are selected with two hadronic taus, at least five jets, at least one b-tag, and no leptons; a four-class BDT discriminates ttH, tH, Z(ττ), and tt. The Z(ττ) and tt backgrounds are normalized in dedicated control regions, and the misidentified-τ background is estimated with a fake-factor method. A profile likelihood fit gives μ_ttH = 1.51 +0.71/−0.62 and μ_tH = −0.4 +5.6/−5.1 with a −34% correlation, SM compatibility of 84%, and observed (expected) ttH significance of 2.6 (1.8) standard deviations. The paper also reports a differential ttH measurement in three bins of pT(H) within the STXS framework, and claims the first tH constraint in this channel and first use of the new GNTau τ-identification algorithm.

Significance. If the analysis is correct, this is the first constraint on tH production in the fully hadronic H→ττ channel and a useful ttH cross-section measurement in this final state, consistent with the SM. The likelihood setup is standard and the signal strengths are well-defined parameters of interest; no circularity is evident. The paper also demonstrates the first use of GNTau and an extension to Run 3 data. However, the measurement precision is limited, the observed ttH significance is modest, and the result depends on background-validation assumptions that are not fully demonstrated in the manuscript. The paper would be a valuable PLB contribution if the validation gaps identified below are addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6] The fake-factor transfer for the misidentified-τ background is the main external-validation gap. Fake factors are measured in W+jets control regions with one lepton and one τ candidate, then applied to inverted-ID data in the signal region requiring exactly two τ candidates, ≥5 jets, ≥1 b-tag, and no leptons. The quoted closure test — same-charge di-τ validation agreeing within 10% — does not validate the opposite-charge signal region because the jet composition and charge correlations differ. Figures 1–2 show post-fit agreement but are not an independent closure test in the signal-region phase space. Since the misidentified-τ background is listed among the primary systematics (Section 7) and the observed ttH significance (2.6σ vs 1.8σ expected) is modest, a 10–20% bias could materially change the central result. Please add an opposite-charge validation region with reduced signal contami
  2. [Section 7] Section 7 states that uncertainties for τhad identification, energy calibration, and trigger efficiency are taken from the previous RNN-based algorithm [78], while Section 4 introduces GNTau as a new transformer-based GNN used for the first time. The GNTau working point has different efficiency and jet-rejection properties; using RNN-derived systematics may undercover data/MC differences. Because both signal acceptance and the misidentified-τ background normalization depend on the τ identification, this is not a negligible detail. Please provide a dedicated validation of GNTau efficiency and fake-rate systematics, or a quantitative argument that the RNN systematics envelope the GNTau differences.
  3. [Section 4] The Run 3 forward-jet reweighting is described as ~10% for one forward jet and up to a factor two for four jets, with a systematic taken as half the correction. This is a large modelling correction in a selection requiring at least five jets, and no data/MC validation of the reweighted forward-jet multiplicity is shown. Given the 161 fb−1 Run 3 sample contributes half the data, please show a closure test in forward-jet multiplicity or justify the half-correction systematic with a data-driven estimate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5] The definition of the 'window' and 'sideband' regions appears only in the Figure 2 caption; please state explicitly in the text.
  2. [Figures 2–3] The labels 'Hx5' and 'tHx50' are not explained; please specify the scaling factors applied to the signal distributions.
  3. [Section 6] The statement that the estimated background agrees with data within 10% in the same-charge validation region is not quantified with uncertainties; please provide a numerical comparison with statistical precision.
  4. [General] The paper does not include a table of observed and expected event yields in the signal and control regions. Such a table would make the fake-factor normalization, control-region yields, and signal contributions transparent for the reader.
  5. [References] Reference [31] is a preliminary ATLAS luminosity note; if a final luminosity calibration paper is available, please cite it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the signal strengths are parameters of interest fitted to data, SM predictions come from external NLO generators, and ATLAS internal references are technique transfers, not premises that already contain the result.

full rationale

The paper's central results are the fitted signal strengths mu_ttH = 1.51+0.71-0.62 and mu_tH = -0.4+5.6-5.1, obtained from a profile-likelihood fit (Section 8, Eq. 1) in which the signal yields are multiplicative factors on MC predictions from Powheg Box and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO normalized to external cross-sections (Section 3). The signal strengths are outputs of the fit, not inputs, and the SM comparison uses independent theoretical predictions. The background model uses Z(tau tau) and ttbar control regions with free normalisation factors and a misidentified-tau fake-factor method borrowed from Ref. [84]; these are data-driven or externally validated techniques, and any residual concern about the fake-factor transfer from W+jets to the signal region is a modelling assumption, not a circular reduction. Citations to Ref. [9] for the pT(H) neural-network estimator and the MMC di-tau mass are calibration/technique transfers, and the use of previous-generation tau-ID uncertainties for the new GNTau algorithm is a stated systematic limitation, not a self-referential derivation. No equation or fitted parameter is shown to be defined in terms of the claimed result, and no load-bearing claim reduces by construction to a self-citation. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physics entities are introduced. The measurement relies on standard SM Monte Carlo, detector simulation, and likelihood assumptions. Free parameters are the fitted signal strengths, background normalisations, and data-driven fake-factors.

free parameters (4)
  • mu_ttH = 1.51 (best-fit)
    Signal strength for ttH; parameter of interest in the profile likelihood fit (Section 8).
  • mu_tH = -0.4 (best-fit)
    Signal strength for tH; parameter of interest in the same fit.
  • Z(tau tau) and ttbar normalisation factors per run = ~1.0
    Background normalisations free in the likelihood, constrained by control regions (Sections 6/8); affect signal extraction.
  • Fake-tau fake-factors = 0.05-0.35 (pT, eta bins)
    Measured in W+jets control regions and used to rescale inverted-ID data; a data-driven input, not an ab initio prediction.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption MC generators and detector simulation accurately model signal and background in the selected phase space
    Used throughout Sections 3-6; acceptance/efficiency and BDT shapes rely on Powheg/MadGraph+Geant4.
  • standard math Profile likelihood asymptotic approximation is valid for confidence intervals
    Section 8 uses asymptotic formulae from Cowan et al. [95]; not verified with toys.
  • domain assumption Control-region normalisation transfers to signal-region BDT shapes
    Section 6/8; central background estimate for Z(tau tau) and ttbar.
  • domain assumption Fake-factor method from W+jets applies to signal-region misidentified taus
    Section 6; validated in same-sign regions within 10% but no full closure in the signal region.
  • domain assumption Other Higgs decay modes do not contaminate signal regions
    Section 5 states contributions are negligible.
  • domain assumption pT(H) estimator neural network from Ref [9] is unbiased for STXS binning
    Section 5/8; used to define STXS categories.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 49731 in / 16912 out tokens · 159044 ms · 2026-08-01T10:37:38.998504+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A study of the production of the Higgs boson in association with either a top-quark pair ($t\bar{t}H$) or a single top quark ($tH$) in the $\tau$-lepton-pair decay channel is presented. The analysis relies on final states featuring fully hadronic decays of the top quarks and the $\tau$-leptons. It employs data samples of proton--proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ and 13.6 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider and corresponding to integrated luminosities of 140 fb$^{-1}$ and 161 fb$^{-1}$, respectively. The measured signal strength ($\mu$), defined as the measured cross-section normalised to the Standard Model prediction, is $\mu_{t\bar{t}H}=1.51^{+0.71}_{-0.62}$ for $t\bar{t}H$ and $\mu_{tH}=-0.4^{+5.6}_{-5.1}$ for $tH$. Additionally, the $t\bar{t}H$ cross-section is measured differentially in three bins of the Higgs boson transverse momentum in the simplified template cross-section framework.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 72 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Evans and P

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

    2008

  4. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay at√𝑠=13 TeV by the ATLAS Experiment, CERN-EP-2026-228, 2026

    2026

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration,Combined measurements and interpretations of Higgs boson production and decay in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, (2026), arXiv:2602.18611 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence for the Higgs-boson Yukawa coupling to tau leptons with the ATLAS detector, JHEP04(2015) 117, arXiv:1501.04943 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    CMS Collaboration,Evidence for the125GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of𝜏leptons, JHEP05(2014) 104, arXiv:1401.5041 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC𝑝𝑝collision data at√𝑠=7and8TeV, JHEP08(2016) 045, arXiv:1606.02266 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Differential cross-section measurements of Higgs boson production in the 𝐻→𝜏 +𝜏− decay channel in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP03(2025) 010, arXiv:2407.16320 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurements of Higgs boson production in the decay channel with a pair of𝜏 leptons in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 562, arXiv:2204.12957 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Zyla et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Prog

    Particle Data Group, P. Zyla et al.,Review of Particle Physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2020(2020) 083C01

    2020

  12. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B784(2018) 173, arXiv:1806.00425 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    CMS Collaboration,Observation of𝑡 ¯𝑡𝐻Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 231801, arXiv:1804.02610 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    S. Badger et al., ‘Les Houches 2015: Physics at TeV Colliders Standard Model Working Group Report’, 9th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders, 2016, arXiv:1605.04692 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Berger et al.,Simplified Template Cross Sections - Stage 1.1 and 1.2, SciPost Phys

    N. Berger et al.,Simplified Template Cross Sections - Stage 1.1 and 1.2, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. (2026) 15, arXiv:1906.02754 [hep-ph]. 15

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    S. Amoroso et al., ‘Les Houches 2019: Physics at TeV Colliders: Standard Model Working Group Report’, 11th Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: PhysTeV Les Houches, 2020, arXiv:2003.01700 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Probing the Higgs-top Yukawa interaction in the𝑡¯𝑡𝐻and𝑡𝐻processes using𝐻→𝛾𝛾with the ATLAS detector, (2026), arXiv:2606.04855 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2021) 027, arXiv:2103.06956 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for the production of a Higgs boson in association with a single top quark in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP10(2025) 093, arXiv:2508.14695 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑡 ¯𝑡𝐻and𝑡𝐻production rates in the𝐻→𝑏 ¯𝑏decay channel using proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP02(2025) 097, arXiv:2407.10896 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for the associated production of a Higgs boson and a single top quark in the𝐻→𝜏𝜏 decay mode and combined measurement of𝑡𝐻 production using𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=13TeV and 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS detector, CERN-EP-2026-224, 2026

    2026

  22. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in multilepton final states in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP05(2026) 183, arXiv:2510.23755 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at√𝑠=13TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 378, arXiv:2011.03652 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

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

    2008

  25. [25]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  27. [27]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Preliminary luminosity calibration of the ATLAS13.6TeV data recorded in 2024 and combination with the 2022 and 2023 measurements, ATL-DAPR-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2948582. 16

    arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS Level-1 topological trigger in Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 7, arXiv:2105.01416 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Golonka and Z

    P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: a precision tool for QED corrections in𝑍and𝑊decays, Eur. Phys. J. C45(2006) 97, arXiv:hep-ph/0506026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    Frixione, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  39. [39]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06(2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J

    J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001, arXiv:1510.03865 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche,Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP12(2008) 039, arXiv:0808.3674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 866, arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  48. [48]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer, Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 220, arXiv:1604.06792 [hep-ph]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP03(2008) 038, arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP09(2012) 049, arXiv:1111.1220 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  52. [52]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  53. [53]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  54. [54]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert,QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP05(2009) 053, arXiv:0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  55. [55]

    Anastasiou, L

    C. Anastasiou, L. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello,High-precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at next-to-next-to leading order, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 094008, arXiv:hep-ph/0312266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  56. [56]

    Frixione, G

    S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi and P. Nason, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction, JHEP09(2007) 126, arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  57. [57]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling for Top2016, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-020, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2216168

    arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    D. J. Lange,The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462(2001) 152

    2001

  59. [59]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Werner, F.-M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  61. [61]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Pierog, I

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

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

    arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

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

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250. 18

    2003

  66. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  69. [69]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [70]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv:2007.02645 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of pile-up mitigation techniques for jets in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=8TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 581, arXiv:1510.03823 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Identification and rejection of pile-up jets at high pseudorapidity with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 580, arXiv:1705.02211 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 712

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Forward jet vertex tagging using the particle flow algorithm, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-026, 2019,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2683100

    arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Transforming jet flavour tagging at ATLAS, Nature Commun.17(2026) 541, arXiv:2505.19689 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Reconstruction, Identification, and Calibration of hadronically decaying tau leptons with the ATLAS detector for the LHC Run 3 and reprocessed Run 2 data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-044, 2022,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2827111

    arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Vaswani et al.,Attention Is All You Need, 2017, arXiv:1706.03762 [cs.CL]

    A. Vaswani et al.,Attention Is All You Need, 2017, arXiv:1706.03762 [cs.CL]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using neural networks in the ATLAS experiment, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-033, 2019,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2688062

    arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Reconstruction of hadronic decay products of tau leptons with the ATLAS experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 295, arXiv:1512.05955 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the tau lepton reconstruction and identification performance in the ATLAS experiment using𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, ATLAS-CONF-2017-029, 2017,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261772

    arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.