Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 88 references

Electroweak W-boson production with two high-mass jets is measured at 480 ± 12 ± 39 ± 53 fb in 13 TeV collisions and agrees with Standard Model predictions; the first differential cross-sections tighten limits on anomalous triple-gauge-boso

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 07:08 UTC pith:QPWVFJGI

load-bearing objection Solid first differential EW Wjj at 13 TeV; f(x) closure-test worry is real but likely covered by large QCD Wjj shape uncertainties—worth a serious referee. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21531 v1 pith:QPWVFJGI submitted 2026-07-23 hep-ex

Measurements of the electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets at sqrt{s}=13\,TeV with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords electroweak Wjj productionvector-boson fusiondifferential cross-sectionSMEFTtriple-gauge-boson couplingsATLAS13 TeVQCD background
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 measures how often a W boson is produced together with two energetic jets through the electroweak interaction—a process that includes vector-boson fusion and is sensitive to the W's self-coupling. It finds the rate in the selected phase space is 480 ± 12 ± 39 ± 53 fb, consistent with the Standard Model's prediction of roughly 430 fb, and supplies the first differential distributions at 13 TeV for six kinematic variables. It then converts those distributions into limits on anomalous triple-gauge-boson couplings in an effective field theory, achieving one of the tightest bounds to date on the CP-even coefficient c_W/Λ². A sympathetic reader would care because the measurement tests the non-Abelian structure of the electroweak interaction at high energies and sharpens the search for new physics in the gauge sector.

Core claim

The central claim is that electroweak W+two-jet (EW Wjj) production in a vector-boson-fusion-enhanced phase space at √s=13 TeV is well described by the Standard Model, and that the new measurement sharpens constraints on the triple-gauge-boson vertex. Using 140 fb⁻¹ of ATLAS data, the paper selects events with a leptonically decaying W boson and at least two forward jets with m_jj > 1 TeV and |Δy_jj| > 2, then extracts the EW signal with a binned maximum-likelihood fit that constrains the dominant QCD Wjj background from three control regions. The measured particle-level fiducial cross-section is 480 ± 12 (stat) ± 39 (exp) ± 53 (theory) fb, consistent with the NLO QCD predictions of 431 ± 7

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the simultaneous signal-plus-background extraction: an extended binned maximum-likelihood fit over four mutually exclusive regions defined by lepton centrality C_ℓ and number of central jets N_cent_jets. The QCD Wjj background, the main contaminant, is constrained per bin by parameters ρ_i^central/ρ_i^forward in the control regions CR0/CR1, while its yield in the signal region SR and control region CR2 is connected to them by a smooth residual correction f(x), taken as a first-order polynomial for m_jj, |Δy_jj|, Δφ_jj and as a logarithm for p_T^jj, p_T^j1, p_T^ℓ. Each observable is fit separately with 3N_bins+2 free parameters. The fitted EW yields are unfolded to

Load-bearing premise

The QCD Wjj background in the signal region is assumed to follow the same smooth functional form f(x) in each observable as in the CR2 control region; if the true signal-to-control-region ratio has structure the fit cannot absorb, the extracted EW signal could shift by more than the quoted uncertainties.

What would settle it

Run the nominal extraction on pseudo-experiments where the CR2/SR QCD ratio has a step (say +30% at m_jj = 2 TeV); a bias larger than the reported statistical uncertainty on the EW yield would falsify the smooth-f(x) background assumption. Alternatively, a future measurement with doubled statistics that keeps the observed high-m_jj excess above the SM at more than 2σ would falsify the claim of full SM consistency.

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

If this is right

  • If correct, the 480 ± 12 ± 39 ± 53 fb fiducial cross-section confirms that vector-boson-fusion-style Wjj production at high dijet mass occurs at the rate the Standard Model predicts.
  • The six unfolded differential cross-sections provide particle-level reference spectra that future Wjj Monte Carlo tunes and higher-order calculations can be validated against.
  • The linear-only 95% interval on c_W/Λ² of [−0.17, 0.12] TeV⁻² adds a competitive, independent constraint on anomalous WWγ/WWZ couplings, complementing existing Wγ and Hγγ bounds.
  • Splitting Δφ_jj by lepton pT at 150 GeV measurably boosts EFT sensitivity, showing that energy information beyond a single angular spectrum is needed to separate new-physics signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The theory uncertainty (53 fb) dominates over statistical (12 fb) and experimental (39 fb); improving the QCD Wjj shape estimation—e.g., through NNLO calculations or a fully data-driven transfer—would likely convert EW Wjj into a more precise SMEFT probe than the current measurement.
  • The observed CP-odd coefficient c̃_W/Λ² interval is asymmetric about zero ([−0.083, 0.25] linear-only); if this asymmetry grows with more data from the HL-LHC, it would be a hint of CP violation in the electroweak gauge sector, though the current interval is compatible with zero.
  • The appendix's combined EW+QCD measurement shows the largest deviations at high m_jj, where the EW contribution dominates; a dedicated NNLO (or NLO-EW-matched) prediction for that region could settle whether the tail is a statistical fluctuation or a genuine discrepancy.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of the electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets (EW Wjj) using 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV pp collisions collected by ATLAS. Events are selected in a VBF-enhanced fiducial region with high-m_jj tag jets, a central lepton, and no central additional jets. A binned maximum-likelihood fit to four regions extracts the EW Wjj signal by constraining the dominant QCD Wjj background through per-bin normalization parameters rho_i and a smooth residual function f(x). The fiducial cross-section is 480 +- 12 (stat) +- 39 (exp) +- 53 (theo) fb, consistent with SM predictions. Differential cross-sections are unfolded to particle level in six observables (m_jj, pT(jj), pT(l), pT(j1), |Delta_y_jj|, Delta_phi_jj). Results are interpreted in SMEFT, giving 95% CL intervals on Wilson coefficients, e.g., linear-only c_W/Lambda^2 = [-0.17, 0.12] TeV^-2, among the most stringent to date. An appendix also reports combined EW+QCD Wjj cross-sections.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a valuable new measurement: it provides the first differential EW Wjj cross-sections at 13 TeV and a competitive EFT interpretation. The analysis is thorough: it propagates statistical, experimental, theoretical, and unfolding uncertainties with per-observable breakdowns; cross-checks with alternative generators (Powheg+Herwig, Sherpa, MadGraph) are included; the multijet background is estimated with two independent data-driven methods; and the unfolding is tested with pseudo-data. The main weakness is the model dependence of the QCD Wjj background extrapolation from control regions to the signal region. The paper is transparent about the linear-only vs. linear-plus-quadratic EFT interpretations and about the comparability of its limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 5.2 and 7, Eq. (3)] The QCD Wjj background in the SR is related to CR2 through the two-parameter smooth function f(x) (first-order polynomial or logarithm), with rho_i parameters constrained mainly by CR0/CR1. Since QCD Wjj is about 50% of the SR, a smooth but non-factorizable shape difference between the zero-central-jet region and the >=1-central-jet region, or between central and forward lepton selections, could bias the extracted EW Wjj signal by an amount comparable to the quoted theory uncertainty. The validation in Section 7 tests alternative forms of f(x) and a reparameterization with CR0 supplying f(x), but only reports consistency 'given the statistical uncertainty' and assigns no systematic. Please provide quantitative closure tests (e.g., pseudo-experiments with injected shape differences) and either assign a corresponding systematic or demonstrate that the method is unbiased well below the tota
  2. [Section 9, EFT interpretation] The EFT signal samples are generated at LO QCD with MadGraph and reweighted to NLO using the bin-by-bin SM ratio of Powheg+Pythia8 to MadGraph. This assumes that the NLO QCD corrections factorize from the EFT operator insertion. The paper does not justify this for the EFT shapes beyond the SM, nor does it assign an uncertainty for this approximation. Since the EFT limits (Table 5) rely on the shape of Delta_phi_jj, a shape-dependent NLO correction could bias the limits on c_W/Lambda^2 and c_HWB/Lambda^2. Please either validate the reweighting with an alternative procedure or assign a systematic for this approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'limits placed on anomalous triple-gauge-boson couplings are among the most stringent to date for linear terms' is vague; the conclusion specifies that only the c_W/Lambda^2 limits are most competitive. Please rephrase for precision.
  2. [Section 5.2] The negative log-likelihood function omits the factorial term; it is correct up to an additive constant but should be stated as such. Also, the binned parameters rho_central_i and rho_forward_i could be defined more explicitly as per-bin nuisance parameters.
  3. [Section 7] The sentence 'Deriving the QCD Wjj estimate directly from the data suggests the control regions chosen to receive the rho_i and f(x) corrections could be switched without changing the results' is awkward; consider rewriting for clarity.
  4. [Section 9] The neural-network-based study motivating the lepton-pT split at 150 GeV is not described. A reference or a brief description of the methodology would aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the measurement compares data to external MC predictions, and the EFT limits are fit outputs rather than inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a direct detector measurement: the fiducial EW Wjj cross-section is extracted from data via a simultaneous likelihood fit in which the EW signal strength and the QCD background correction parameters are free; the result is compared with independent generator predictions (Powheg+Pythia8, Powheg+Herwig, Sherpa) that are not fitted to the data. The EFT Wilson-coefficient limits in Table 5 are explicitly fit outputs from a likelihood fit to the unfolded Delta-phi_jj distributions, not fitted values relabelled as predictions. The only potentially fragile step is the CR2-to-SR QCD extrapolation through the smooth residual f(x) in Eq. (3); the paper tests alternative functional forms and a reparameterized fit (Section 7), but assigns no closure systematic. That is a modeling/uncertainty concern about closure and statistical power, not a circular reduction: the EW signal is not defined in terms of f(x), and f(x) is constrained primarily in CR2 rather than being a fit to the signal region. Self-citations to prior ATLAS measurements ([2], [6]) and detector/luminosity references supply methodology and calibration constants; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the justification for the measured values. No load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on Monte Carlo modeling of signal and background shapes, data-driven corrections for the dominant QCD Wjj and multijet components, and standard SMEFT assumptions. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • f(x) parameters (2 per observable) = not quoted; fitted to CR2 data per observable
    First-order polynomial or logarithmic residual correction for the QCD Wjj background, fitted in the CR2 control region and applied to the SR; central to the signal extraction (Eq. (3), Section 5.2).
  • ρ_central_i and ρ_forward_i = per-bin values from the likelihood fit
    Binned normalizations of the QCD Wjj background in central/forward lepton-centrality regions, fitted to CR0/CR1 data (Eq. (3)).
  • Centrality threshold 0.4 = 0.4
    Chosen to optimize the statistical significance of the EW Wjj signal (Section 4.2); affects the definition of SR and control regions.
  • Lepton-pT split at 150 GeV = 150 GeV
    Chosen for the EFT interpretation based on a neural-network importance study and statistics considerations (Section 9); the split affects the Δφ_jj EFT fits.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption NLO QCD Monte Carlo generators (Powheg+Pythia8) accurately model the shapes of EW and QCD Wjj production after data-driven corrections.
    The response matrix and the nominal signal and background templates are derived from these generators (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The VBF approximation for EW Wjj excludes overlap with diboson topologies and is an adequate signal definition.
    Signal MC is generated in the 'VBF approximation' [29]; diboson final states are treated as a separate background (Section 3).
  • domain assumption NLO EW corrections from Ref. [32] are applicable to this phase space and are propagated as an uncertainty equal to their size.
    These m_jj-dependent K-factors are used for predictions and EFT reweighting; their phase-space mismatch is covered by an uncertainty (Sections 3 and 9).
  • ad hoc to paper The QCD Wjj background ratio between CR2 and SR is described by the fitted smooth function f(x).
    Eq. (3) assumes the residual correction f(x) can extrapolate the QCD background from CR2 to SR after per-bin ρ corrections; alternatives are tested but no explicit systematic is assigned (Section 7).
  • domain assumption EW–QCD interference is small in the fiducial region and can be treated as an additive uncertainty.
    Interference is generated with MadGraph and applied as an uncertainty of up to 10% at low |Δy_jj| (Section 7).
  • domain assumption The SMEFT interpretation assumes U(3)^5 flavor symmetry, massless fermions, the m_W input scheme, and only one Wilson coefficient nonzero at a time.
    These are standard SMEFTsim assumptions stated before the EFT fit (Section 9).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 66783 in / 12599 out tokens · 131912 ms · 2026-08-01T07:08:58.223532+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Measurements of the electroweak production of a $W$ boson in association with two jets at high dijet invariant mass are performed using a dataset from $140\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13\,\mathrm{TeV}$ proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The measurements are made in a fiducial region where the $W$ boson's production via vector-boson fusion is enhanced. The fiducial region requires at least two jets, an electron or a muon, and a neutrino, assuming a leptonic $W$ decay. In addition to the integrated production cross-section, differential cross-sections unfolded to particle level are determined as functions of observables which characterise angular properties of the two highest-energy jets, the kinematics of the $W$ boson, and the transverse momenta of the highest-energy jet and the charged lepton. Results are interpreted in the context of an effective field theory, and the limits placed on anomalous triple-gauge-boson couplings are among the most stringent to date for linear terms of the extended Lagrangian.

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

88 extracted references · 72 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurementoftheelectroweakproductionofdijetsinassociationwitha 𝑍-bosonanddistributions sensitive to vector boson fusion in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=8TeV using the ATLAS detector, JHEP04(2014) 031, arXiv:1401.7610 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of electroweak𝑊𝑗𝑗production and constraints on anomalous gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 474, arXiv:1703.04362 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of electroweak production of a𝑊 boson and two forward jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=8TeV, JHEP11(2016) 147, arXiv:1607.06975 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    CMS Collaboration,Electroweak production of two jets in association with a𝑍boson in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 589, arXiv:1712.09814 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of electroweak production of a𝑊 boson in association with two jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 43, arXiv:1903.04040 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Differential cross-section measurements for the electroweak production of dijets in association with a𝑍boson in proton–proton collisions at ATLAS, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 163, arXiv:2006.15458 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Degrande et al.,Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings, Ann

    C. Degrande et al.,Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.)335(2013) 21, arXiv:1205.4231 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

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

    2008

  9. [9]

    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. 34

    2018

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    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

  13. [13]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P09015, arXiv:2004.13447 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

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

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

    2003

  18. [18]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands,A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST14(2019) P12006, arXiv:1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    Schissler and D

    F. Schissler and D. Zeppenfeld, Parton Shower Effects on𝑊and𝑍Production via Vector Boson Fusion at NLO QCD, JHEP04(2013) 057, arXiv:1302.2884 [hep-ph]. 35

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    Jäger, S

    B. Jäger, S. Schneider and G. Zanderighi, Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to electroweak𝑍𝑗𝑗production in the POWHEG BOX, JHEP09(2012) 083, arXiv:1207.2626 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

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

    arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    J. M. Lindert, S. Pozzorini and M. Schönherr, Precise predictions for V + 2 jet backgrounds in searches for invisible Higgs decays, JHEP01(2023) 070, arXiv:2204.07652 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Bähr et al.,Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur

    M. Bähr et al.,Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. C58(2008) 639, arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  34. [34]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 196, arXiv:1512.01178 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Gleisberg et al.,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP02(2009) 007, arXiv:0811.4622 [hep-ph]

    T. Gleisberg et al.,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP02(2009) 007, arXiv:0811.4622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, W and Z Bosons in association with two jets using the POWHEG method, JHEP08(2013) 005, arXiv:1303.5447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Lai et al.,New parton distributions for collider physics, Phys

    H.-L. Lai et al.,New parton distributions for collider physics, Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 074024, arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑍/𝛾∗ boson transverse momentum distribution in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=7TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP09(2014) 145, arXiv:1406.3660 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Nason and C

    P. Nason and C. Oleari,Generation cuts and Born suppression in POWHEG, (2013), arXiv:1303.3922 [hep-ph]. 36

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Re, NLO corrections merged with parton showers for Z + 2 jets production using the POWHEG method, JHEP10(2012) 031, arXiv:1204.5433 [hep-ph]

    E. Re, NLO corrections merged with parton showers for Z + 2 jets production using the POWHEG method, JHEP10(2012) 031, arXiv:1204.5433 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    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, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2930, arXiv:1112.5675 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Kidonakis and N

    N. Kidonakis and N. Yamanaka, Higher-order corrections for𝑡𝑊 production at high-energy hadron colliders, JHEP05(2021) 278, arXiv:2102.11300 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Z. L. Liu and J. Gao, s -channel single top quark production and decay at next-to-next-to-leading-order in QCD, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 071501, arXiv:1807.03835 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Campbell, T

    J. Campbell, T. Neumann and Z. Sullivan,Single-top-quark production in the𝑡-channel at NNLO, JHEP02(2021) 040, arXiv:2012.01574 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at√𝑠=13TeV , ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-026, 2015,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037717

    arXiv 2015

  53. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Electron reconstruction and identification in the ATLAS experiment using the 2015 and 2016 LHC proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 639, arXiv:1902.04655 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 292, arXiv:1603.05598 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    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

  57. [57]

    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

  58. [58]

    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

  59. [59]

    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

  60. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Optimisation and performance studies of the ATLAS𝑏-tagging algorithms for the 2017-18 LHC run, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-013, 2017,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2273281. 37

    arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS flavour-tagging algorithms for the LHC Run 2𝑝𝑝 collision dataset, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 681, arXiv:2211.16345 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    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

  63. [63]

    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

  64. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction and its significance with the ATLAS detector using140fb−1 of√𝑠=13TeV𝑝𝑝collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 606, arXiv:2402.05858 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    ATLAS Collaboration,TRExFitter,url:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14845712

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.14845712

  66. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Tools for estimating fake/non-prompt lepton backgrounds with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, JINST18(2023) T11004, arXiv:2211.16178 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    D’Agostini,A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl

    G. D’Agostini,A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A362(1995) 487

    1995

  68. [68]

    T. Adye, ‘Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold’, Proceedings, 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT 2011)(CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 17th–20th Jan. 2011) 313, arXiv:1105.1160 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Proposal for particle-level object and observable definitions for use in physics measurements at the LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-013, 2015, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2022743

    arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Cacciari and G

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam,Pileup subtraction using jet areas, Phys. Lett. B659(2008) 119, arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  71. [71]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Evaluating statistical uncertainties and correlations using the bootstrap method, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011, 2021,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945

    arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the Inelastic Proton–Proton Cross Section at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) 182002, arXiv:1606.02625 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 2 data, JINST19(2024) P02009, arXiv:2309.05471 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Studies of the muon momentum calibration and performance of the ATLAS detector with𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 686, arXiv:2212.07338 [hep-ex]. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    Dulat et al., New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys

    S. Dulat et al., New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 033006, arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R. S. Thorne, Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 204, arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  78. [78]

    Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide, JHEP04(2021) 073

    I. Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide, JHEP04(2021) 073

    2021

  79. [79]

    Brivio, Y

    I. Brivio, Y. Jiang and M. Trott,The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools, JHEP12(2017) 070, arXiv:1709.06492 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzyński, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP10(2010) 085, arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.