Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Search for production of four top quarks in final states with same-sign or multiple leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper measures the four-top-quark production cross section in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions and finds it consistent with the standard model, with an observed significance of 2.6 standard deviations.

desk verdict A solid, incremental four-top search on the full Run 2 dataset; the largest systematic is the ttbb/ttjj flavor correction, not the nonprompt-lepton method, and the paper deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06463 v2 pith:VH7J5CRR submitted 2019-08-18 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords fourtopquarkproductionsame-signdileptonfinalstatemultileptonYukawacouplingboosteddecisiontreetwo-Higgs-doubletmodeleffectivefieldtheorydarkmattersimplifiedmodels
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper seeks to establish that the standard-model process producing four top quarks in proton-proton collisions is present in LHC data and to measure its rate. Using $137\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collisions and final states with two same-sign leptons or at least three leptons, the authors report a cross section of $12.6^{+5.8}_{-5.2}$ fb from their boosted decision tree analysis, with an observed $2.6$ standard deviation excess over background alone and an expected excess of $2.7$. This agrees with the standard model prediction of $12.0^{+2.2}_{-2.5}$ fb, so the measurement would confirm the predicted rate and sharpen the search for new physics that could enhance four-top production. A correct measurement matters because four-top production is a rare process with relatively clean final states, making it a sensitive probe of the top quark's Higgs coupling and of particles that couple strongly to top quarks.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a selection of same-sign dilepton or multilepton events with high jet and b-jet multiplicity, divided into signal regions and control regions and fitted with a profile likelihood. For the primary result, a boosted decision tree (BDT), a multivariate classifier trained on 19 kinematic variables, separates the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ signal from backgrounds, and its output is discretized into 17 signal regions plus a $\mathrm{t\bar{t}Z}$ control region. The dominant fake-lepton background is estimated with the tight-to-loose ratio method, which measures the probability for a loosely identified nonprompt lepton to also pass the tight selection; the paper redefines the lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ to include isolation-cone energy so that a single efficiency can be applied across different parent-parton momenta. The profile likelihood fit then extracts the signal cross section while constraining the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}W}$ and $\mathrm{t\bar{t}Z}$ normalizations.

What would settle it

Compare the tight-to-loose prediction with data in a same-sign dilepton sideband with exactly two jets and at most one b-tagged jet, where the four-top signal is negligible; a disagreement beyond the quoted 30-60% uncertainty in the nonprompt estimate would shift the measured cross section directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is a measured $\sigma(pp\to \mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}) = 12.6^{+5.8}_{-5.2}$ fb in the boosted decision tree analysis, with an observed (expected) significance of $2.6$ ($2.7$) standard deviations relative to the background-only hypothesis and a 95% CL upper limit of 22.5 fb. The cut-based analysis gives a compatible value of $9.4^{+6.2}_{-5.6}$ fb with an observed significance of $1.7$ standard deviations. The paper treats the BDT result as primary because it provides higher expected precision, and uses it to derive a 95% CL limit $|y_{\mathrm{t}}/y_{\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|<1.7$, an effective-field-theory bound $\hat{H}<0.12$, and mass exclusions up to 470 (550) GeV for a heavy scalar (pseudoscalar) in Type-II two-Higgs-doublet and simplified dark matter models.

Load-bearing premise

The nonprompt-lepton background estimate rests on the tight-to-loose ratio method, which assumes that a single efficiency for loose leptons to pass the tight selection, parameterized by flavor, $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, and $|\eta|$, applies to all sources of nonprompt leptons after a specific momentum redefinition, and that the prompt-lepton contamination subtracted from the control sample is correctly described by simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central measurement is right, the standard model's next-to-leading-order prediction for four-top production is confirmed at the level of precision reached by this data set.
  • The observed 2.6-sigma excess over background alone would grow as more data are analyzed, making a definitive observation of this rare process plausible with the full LHC data set.
  • The limit $|y_{\mathrm{t}}/y_{\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|<1.7$ constrains the top quark's Yukawa coupling without assumptions about the Higgs boson width, complementary to constraints from Higgs-rate measurements.
  • The exclusions of heavy scalar and pseudoscalar bosons up to 470 and 550 GeV translate into limits on two-Higgs-doublet parameter space and on simplified dark matter mediators that couple to top quarks.
  • The BDT analysis's better expected precision compared with the cut-based approach establishes a reusable pattern for future searches in this final state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the standard-model rate is correct, the expected significance should scale roughly with the square root of integrated luminosity, so a combined Run 2 plus Run 3 data set should push this search past the 5-sigma discovery threshold.
  • The paper notes that dedicated top-tagging algorithms did not improve sensitivity because only a few events reconstruct all top-quark decay products; with more data those algorithms could become useful for the boosted heavy-scalar interpretation, where the current analysis relies on BDT binning.
  • The tight-to-loose method's single-efficiency assumption could be stress-tested by measuring the efficiency separately for muon- and electron-like nonprompt leptons in control samples; a failure there would directly change the measured cross section.
  • The limits on light scalar and vector particles coupling to top quarks suggest that four-top production is a uniquely sensitive probe of top-philic new physics below the on-shell top-pair threshold, a region that other LHC searches constrain only weakly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a search for four-top-quark production in final states with same-sign dileptons or at least three leptons, using 137 fb^-1 of proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV recorded by CMS. Two analysis strategies are developed: a cut-based categorization with 14 signal regions and dedicated ttW and ttZ control regions, and a BDT-based analysis with 17 signal regions and a ttZ control region. Signal and prompt backgrounds are modeled with Monte Carlo simulation, with corrections for ISR/FSR jet multiplicity and for the flavor of additional jets based on the measured sigma(ttbb)/sigma(ttjj) ratio. Nonprompt leptons are estimated with the tight-to-loose ratio method and charge-misidentified leptons from simulation with data-derived correction factors. A profile maximum-likelihood fit yields sigma(pp to tttt) = 12.6 +5.8 -5.2 fb in the BDT analysis with an observed (expected) significance of 2.6 (2.7) standard deviations, consistent with the standard model prediction of 12.0 +2.2 -2.5 fb. The cut-based analysis gives 9.4 +6.2 -5.6 fb and is found to be statistically compatible. The results are interpreted as constraints on the top-quark Yukawa coupling (|yt/yt^SM| < 1.7), the H-hat oblique parameter (H-hat < 0.12), and on heavy scalar and pseudoscalar production in Type-II 2HDM and simplified dark matter models.

Significance. If correct, this is the most precise measurement of the four-top-quark production cross section at 13 TeV to date and represents the first CMS result with the full Run 2 dataset in this final state. The analysis is thorough and well documented: it uses a profile-likelihood fit with dedicated control regions for ttZ in both analyses and for ttW in the cut-based analysis, data-driven nonprompt-lepton estimates with simulation closure tests, and a detailed uncertainty treatment summarized in Table 2. The dual cut-based and BDT strategies provide an important internal cross-check, and the paper extends the physics reach with several BSM interpretations. The main caveat is the reliance on the inclusive ttbb/ttjj ratio to correct the flavor of additional jets in ttW, ttZ, and ttH backgrounds; this is the largest single systematic and is not directly validated in the BDT analysis, which is the primary result.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5, Section 6, Table 2] The largest single systematic in the measurement is the correction of the ttW, ttZ, and ttH backgrounds based on the inclusive ratio sigma(ttbb)/sigma(ttjj) = 1.7 +/- 0.6 from Ref. [60], which has an 11% impact on sigma(tttt). The BDT analysis, which is the primary result, has no dedicated ttW control region (only CRZ), so this shape correction is constrained only by the signal regions themselves. The assumption that the inclusive ttbb/ttjj ratio applies to ttW, ttZ, and ttH is not self-evident, because the additional b-quark production mechanisms differ (e.g., W radiation from a b quark in ttW). I request a direct validation: for example, include the CRW in the BDT fit and check the change in the measured cross section, or compare the predicted and observed Nb distribution in the CRW under the BDT selection. If such a test is not feasible, please provide a quantitative argument that the 35% uncertainty on the ratio covers the expected process-dependent variation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7] The sentence about the fitted nuisance parameters states that the ttW and ttZ normalizations are both scaled by 1.3 +/- 0.2 by the fit, but it is not clear whether this refers to the BDT analysis, the cut-based analysis, or both; please specify, and for the BDT analysis, explain how the ttW normalization is constrained without a dedicated control region.
  2. [Section 4] The BDT input list includes the pT of the sixth, seventh, and eighth jets; please state what value is used for these variables when fewer jets are present in an event.
  3. [Section 7] The phrase 'The tttt cross section and the 68% CL interval is measured to be' is grammatically awkward; please rephrase, for example as 'The tttt cross section is measured to be ... with a 68% CL interval of ...'.
  4. [Section 8] The sentence 'These limits exclude couplings larger than 1.2 for m_phi in the 25-340 GeV range and larger than 0.1 (0.9) for m_Z' = 25 (300) GeV' is hard to parse; please rephrase for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: signal cross section extracted from a profile likelihood fit to data, with all interpretations benchmarked against external theoretical predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central result, sigma(pp -> tttt) = 12.6 +5.8 -5.2 fb in the BDT analysis, is obtained from a binned maximum-likelihood fit over signal regions and control regions (CRZ, and CRW for the cut-based analysis), with the parameter of interest being the tttt cross section itself. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the background estimates come either from simulation with data-driven corrections (nonprompt-lepton tight-to-loose method, charge-misidentification probability, ttW/ttZ normalizations constrained in control regions) or from external measurements used as uncertainties. The expected significance is computed against the SM prediction of 12.0 +2.2 -2.5 fb from Ref. [1], an external NLO calculation, and the BSM limits are obtained by comparing data-derived upper limits to external theoretical cross sections (Refs. [2, 6, 9, 11, 35]). The largest systematic, the sigma(ttbb)/sigma(ttjj) = 1.7 +/- 0.6 correction to ttW/ttZ/ttH backgrounds, is taken from an external CMS measurement (Ref. [60]) and is treated purely as a background uncertainty; it does not define the measured signal cross section. Self-citations to prior CMS searches ([23], [26], [27]) serve as context and comparison, not as load-bearing justification for the derivation. No equation or construction was found in which an output quantity is identical to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is recycled as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard physics assumptions: the SM process being measured, NLO cross-section predictions, and the fidelity of the detector simulation. The floating normalizations for ttW and ttZ are constrained by dedicated control regions, so they are nuisance parameters rather than ad hoc inputs, and no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ttW normalization scale factor = 1.3 +/- 0.2
    The ttW background yield is scaled by a floating parameter in the profile likelihood fit, constrained by the CRW control region (Section 7). This is a standard nuisance parameter, not an ad hoc input.
  • ttZ normalization scale factor = 1.3 +/- 0.2
    The ttZ background yield is similarly floated and constrained by the CRZ control region (Section 7). Both scale factors are consistent with external measurements.
  • Charge misidentification correction factor for 2017 and 2018 = approximately 1.4
    A data-derived correction factor is applied to the simulation-based charge misidentification probability for 2017 and 2018 (Section 5). It is measured in a Z to e+e- control sample and affects the charge-misidentified background estimate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The SM tttt NLO cross section of 12.0 +2.2 -2.5 fb from Ref [1] is reliable for the expected significance and as the SM background for BSM interpretations.
    This prediction is referenced in Section 1 and used in Section 7 for the expected significance and in Section 8 as a background for BSM limits. If the prediction were inaccurate, the expected significance and limits would shift.
  • domain assumption The Monte Carlo simulation chain (MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, PYTHIA8, GEANT4) accurately models the signal acceptance and kinematic distributions, including the BDT input variables.
    The signal acceptance (approximately 1.5%) and all background shapes come from simulated samples described in Section 2. No data-based cross-check of the tttt acceptance is possible, so the measurement relies on the fidelity of the detector simulation.
  • domain assumption The tight-to-loose ratio method correctly estimates the nonprompt-lepton background in all signal regions.
    This data-driven method (Section 5) is the primary estimate for nonprompt leptons, a significant background in same-sign dilepton events. It depends on the stability of epsilon_TL and the accuracy of the prompt-lepton contamination subtraction.
  • domain assumption Electron charge misidentification probabilities, taken from simulation with a single correction factor, are accurate across the full pT and |eta| range.
    The charge-misidentified background is estimated by applying these probabilities to an opposite-sign control region (Section 5). A single inclusive correction factor is used, and any residual mismodeling could bias the background prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for production of four top quarks in final states with same-sign or multiple leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VH7J5CRR

@misc{pith2026190806463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for production of four top quarks in final states with same-sign or multiple leptons in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts =$ 13 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VH7J5CRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06463}
}
abstract

The standard model (SM) production of four top quarks ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$) in proton-proton collision is studied by the CMS Collaboration. The data sample, collected during the 2016-2018 data taking of the LHC, corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$ at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The events are required to contain two same-sign charged leptons (electrons or muons) or at least three leptons, and jets. The observed and expected significances for the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ signal are respectively 2.6 and 2.7 standard deviations, and the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ cross section is measured to be 12.6 $^{+5.8}_{-5.2}$ fb. The results are used to constrain the Yukawa coupling of the top quark to the Higgs boson, $y_{\mathrm{t}}$, yielding a limit of $|y_{\mathrm{t}}$ $/$ $y_{\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{SM}}|$ $<$ 1.7 at 95% confidence level, where $y_{\mathrm{t}}^{\mathrm{SM}}$ is the SM value of $y_{\mathrm{t}}$. They are also used to constrain the oblique parameter of the Higgs boson in an effective field theory framework, $\hat{H}$ $<$ 0.12. Limits are set on the production of a heavy scalar or pseudoscalar boson in Type-II two-Higgs-doublet and simplified dark matter models, with exclusion limits reaching 350-470 GeV and 350-550 GeV for scalar and pseudoscalar bosons, respectively. Upper bounds are also set on couplings of the top quark to new light particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Typical Feynman diagrams for tt tt production at leading order in the SM. The tt tt cross section can be used to constrain the magnitude and CP properties of the Yukawa coupling of the top quark to the Higgs boson [2, 3]. Moreover, tt tt production can be signifi￾cantly enhanced by beyond-the-SM (BSM) particles and interactions. New particles coupled to the top quark, such as heavy scalar and pseudoscalar bosons pre… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distributions of Njets (upper left), Nb (upper right), HT (lower left), and p miss T (lower right) in the summed SRs (1–14), before fitting to data, where the last bins include the over￾flows. The hatched areas represent the total uncertainties in the SM signal and background predictions. The tt tt signal assumes the SM cross section from Ref. [1]. The lower panels show the ratios of the observed event yield to the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distributions of Njets (left) and Nb (right) in the ttW (upper) and ttZ (lower) CRs, before fitting to data. The hatched areas represent the uncertainties in the SM signal and back￾ground predictions. The tt tt signal assumes the SM cross section from Ref. [1]. The lower panels show the ratios of the observed event yield to the total prediction of signal plus back￾ground. tribution to the data, are 9.4+4.3 −2.9 fb (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed yields in the control and signal regions for the cut-based (upper) and BDT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The observed σ(pp → tt tt ) (solid line) and 95% CL upper limit (hatched line) are shown as a function of |yt/y SM t |. The predicted value (dashed line) [2], calculated at LO and scaled to the calculation from Ref. [1], is also plotted. The shaded band around the meas…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 95% CL exclusion regions in the plane of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The observed (points) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The observed (solid curve) and expected (long-dashed curve) 95% CL exclusion re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Exclusion regions at 95% CL in the plane of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Electroweak precision observables at NLL order in the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    SMEFT electroweak precision predictions can be upgraded to NLL accuracy using two-loop renormalization-group evolution plus one-loop matching, yielding complete 210-coefficient expressions and stronger indirect new-ph...

  2. HiggsTools for LHC Run 3 and Beyond

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The HiggsTools toolbox is upgraded for LHC Run 3 with 13.6 and 14 TeV cross-sections, resonant and non-resonant di-Higgs predictions including interference, and a recast four-top search limit.

  3. Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two-loop SMEFT corrections from third-generation four-quark operators to gg to h and h to gamma gamma are computed with full mass dependence, including new two-loop anomalous dimensions.

  4. Invariant-mass threshold resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC

    hep-ph 2025-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    First invariant-mass threshold resummation for ttbar ttbar production, giving NLO+NLL' predictions for the invariant-mass distribution and total cross section.

  5. Light scalars within the $\mathcal{CP}$-conserving Aligned-two-Higgs-doublet model

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    All seven light-scalar scenarios of the CP-conserving aligned two-Higgs-doublet model contain sizeable parameter regions compatible with current collider and flavour data, with the lightest new scalars bounded by LEP ...

  6. Search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons A and H in the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$Z channel in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    hep-ex 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A CMS search in a previously unexplored final state finds no heavy neutral Higgs signal and sets the most stringent limits to date on the A to ZH to tt process at high masses.

  7. Fingerprinting New Physics with Effective Field Theories

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A thesis compiling published SMEFT global fits, automated UV-model constraints, and ML-based unbinned observables, with projections for HL-LHC, FCC-ee, and CEPC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [27]

    Search for standard model production of four top quarks with same-sign and multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for standard model production of four top quarks with same-sign and multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 140, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5607-5 , arXiv:1710.10614

    arXiv 2018

  2. [60]

    Measurements of tt-bar cross sections in association with b jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of t ¯t cross sections in association with b jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 355, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.043, arXiv:1705.10141

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    Large NLO corrections in t ¯tW± and t¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro, “Large NLO corrections in t ¯tW± and t¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions”, JHEP 02 (2018) 031, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)031, arXiv:1711.02116

    arXiv 2018

  4. [2]

    Probing Higgs width and top quark Yukawa coupling from t¯tH and t¯tt¯t productions

    Q.-H. Cao, S.-L. Chen, and Y. Liu, “Probing Higgs width and top quark Yukawa coupling from t¯tH and t¯tt¯t productions”, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 053004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.053004, arXiv:1602.01934

    arXiv 2017

  5. [3]

    Limiting top-Higgs interaction and Higgs-boson width from multi-top productions

    Q.-H. Cao et al., “Limiting top-Higgs interaction and Higgs-boson width from multi-top productions”, (2019). arXiv:1901.04567

    arXiv 2019

  6. [4]

    Higgs decay to top quarks at hadron colliders

    D. Dicus, A. Stange, and S. Willenbrock, “Higgs decay to top quarks at hadron colliders”, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 126, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)91017-0, arXiv:hep-ph/9404359

    arXiv 1994

  7. [5]

    The hunt for the rest of the Higgs bosons

    N. Craig et al., “The hunt for the rest of the Higgs bosons”, JHEP 06 (2015) 137, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)137, arXiv:1504.04630

    arXiv 2015

  8. [6]

    Heavy Higgs bosons at low tan β: from the LHC to 100 TeV

    N. Craig et al., “Heavy Higgs bosons at low tan β: from the LHC to 100 TeV”, JHEP 01 (2017) 018, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2017)018, arXiv:1605.08744. 20

    arXiv 2017

Show all 77 references
  1. [7]

    Recommendations on presenting LHC searches for missing transverse energy signals using simplified s-channel models of dark matter

    G. Busoni et al., “Recommendations on presenting LHC searches for missing transverse energy signals using simplified s-channel models of dark matter”, (2016). arXiv:1603.04156

    2016 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Recommendations of the LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Comparing LHC searches for heavy mediators of dark matter production in visible and invisible decay channels

    A. Albert et al., “Recommendations of the LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Comparing LHC searches for heavy mediators of dark matter production in visible and invisible decay channels”, (2017). arXiv:1703.05703

    2017 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Four tops for LHC

    E. Alvarez et al., “Four tops for LHC”, Nucl. Phys. B 915 (2017) 19, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.11.024, arXiv:1611.05032

    2017 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A Monte Carlo global analysis of the standard model effective field theory: the top quark sector

    N. P . Hartland et al., “A Monte Carlo global analysis of the standard model effective field theory: the top quark sector”, JHEP 04 (2019) 100, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2019)100, arXiv:1901.05965

    2019 arXiv

  5. [11]

    The ˆH-parameter: an oblique Higgs view

    C. Englert, G. F. Giudice, A. Greljo, and M. Mccullough, “The ˆH-parameter: an oblique Higgs view”, (2019). arXiv:1903.07725

    2019 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Dual theory for free fermions

    P . Ramond, “Dual theory for free fermions”, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2415, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2415

    1971 doi

  7. [13]

    Extension of the algebra of Poincar´e group generators and violation of P invariance

    Y. A. Gol’fand and E. P . Likhtman, “Extension of the algebra of Poincar´e group generators and violation of P invariance”, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323

    1971

  8. [14]

    Factorizable dual model of pions

    A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, “Factorizable dual model of pions”, Nucl. Phys. B 31 (1971) 86, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71)90448-2

    1971 doi

  9. [15]

    Possible universal neutrino interaction

    D. V . Volkov and V . P . Akulov, “Possible universal neutrino interaction”,JETP Lett. 16 (1972) 438

    1972

  10. [16]

    A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations”, Phys. Lett. B 49 (1974) 52, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(74)90578-4

    1974 doi

  11. [17]

    Supergauge transformations in four dimensions

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge transformations in four dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974) 39, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1

    1974 doi

  12. [18]

    Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino

    P . Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino”, Nucl. Phys. B 90 (1975) 104, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7

    1975 doi

  13. [19]

    Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics

    H. P . Nilles, “Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics”, Phys. Rept. 110 (1984) 1, doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5

    1984 doi

  14. [20]

    A supersymmetry primer

    S. P . Martin, “A supersymmetry primer”, in Perspectives on Supersymmetry II , G. L. Kane, ed., p. 1. World Scientific, 2010. Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys., vol. 21. doi:10.1142/9789814307505_0001

    2010 doi

  15. [21]

    Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry

    G. R. Farrar and P . Fayet, “Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry”, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4

    1978 doi

  16. [22]

    Review of Particle Physics

    Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., “Review of Particle Physics”, Chin. Phys. C 40 (2016) 100001, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001. References 21

    2016 doi

  17. [23]

    Search for the production of four top quarks in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for the production of four top quarks in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, (2019). arXiv:1906.02805. Submitted to JHEP

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Search for new phenomena in events with same-charge leptons and b-jets in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for new phenomena in events with same-charge leptons and b-jets in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 12 (2018) 039, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)039, arXiv:1807.11883

    2018 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Search for four-top-quark production in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for four-top-quark production in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 052009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.052009, arXiv:1811.02305

    2019 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Search for physics beyond the standard model in events with two leptons of same sign, missing transverse momentum, and jets in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for physics beyond the standard model in events with two leptons of same sign, missing transverse momentum, and jets in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 578, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5079-z , arXiv:1704.07323

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    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”, JHEP 07 (2014) 079, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    W+W−, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX

    T. Melia, P . Nason, R. R¨ontsch, and G. Zanderighi, “W+W−, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP 11 (2011) 078, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)078, arXiv:1107.5051

    2011 arXiv

  23. [30]

    W+W− , WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX V2

    P . Nason and G. Zanderighi, “W+W− , WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX V2”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2702, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2702-5 , arXiv:1311.1365

    2014 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector

    D. de Florian et al., “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

    2017 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Automatic evaluation of UV and R 2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle

    C. Degrande, “Automatic evaluation of UV and R 2 terms for beyond the Standard Model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 239, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.08.015, arXiv:1406.3030

    2015 arXiv

  26. [33]

    A comprehensive approach to new physics simulations

    N. D. Christensen et al., “A comprehensive approach to new physics simulations”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1541, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1541-5 , arXiv:0906.2474

    2011 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Maximally symmetric two Higgs doublet model with natural standard model alignment

    P . S. Bhupal Dev and A. Pilaftsis, “Maximally symmetric two Higgs doublet model with natural standard model alignment”, JHEP 12 (2014) 024, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2014)024, arXiv:1408.3405. [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)147]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Search for dark matter produced in association with a single top quark or a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for dark matter produced in association with a single top quark or a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 03 (2019) 141, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)141, arXiv:1901.01553. 22

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Parton distributions for the LHC Run II

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”, JHEP 04 (2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040, arXiv:1410.8849

    2015 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 , arXiv:1706.00428

    2017 arXiv

  31. [38]

    A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1

    T. Sj ¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P . Z. Skands, “A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1”,Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2008.01.036, arXiv:0710.3820

    2008 arXiv

  32. [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

    2015 arXiv

  33. [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. C 53 (2008) 473, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5 , arXiv:0706.2569

    2008 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Merging meets matching in MC@NLO

    R. Frederix and S. Frixione, “Merging meets matching in MC@NLO”, JHEP 12 (2012) 061, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061, arXiv:1209.6215

    2012 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune

    P . Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3024, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y , arXiv:1404.5630

    2014 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x , arXiv:1512.00815

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”, (2019). arXiv:1903.12179. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C

    2019 arXiv

  38. [45]

    G EANT 4 — a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “G EANT 4 — a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  39. [46]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

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

    2008 doi

  40. [47]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    2017 arXiv

  41. [48]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

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

    2008 arXiv

  42. [49]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 , arXiv:1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  43. [50]

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

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

    2017 arXiv

  44. [51]

    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”, JINST 10 (2015) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005, arXiv:1502.02701. References 23

    2015 arXiv

  45. [52]

    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”, JINST 7 (2012) P10002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071

    2012 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Pileup subtraction using jet areas

    M. Cacciari and G. P . Salam, “Pileup subtraction using jet areas”, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077, arXiv:0707.1378

    2008 arXiv

  47. [54]

    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”, JINST 12 (2016) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663

    2016 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017

    2017

  49. [56]

    Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV pp collision data using the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 TeV pp collision data using the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-004, 2016

    2016

  50. [57]

    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”, JINST 13 (2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, arXiv:1712.07158

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    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”, JINST 14 (2019) P07004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078

    2019 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Search for new physics in same-sign dilepton events in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for new physics in same-sign dilepton events in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 439, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4261-z , arXiv:1605.03171

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    CMS Technical Design Report for the Pixel Detector Upgrade

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS Technical Design Report for the Pixel Detector Upgrade”, Technical Report CERN-LHCC-2012-016, 2012

    2012

  54. [62]

    CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, 2017

    2016

  55. [63]

    CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018

    2017

  56. [64]

    CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s = 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019

    2018

  57. [65]

    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”, JHEP 07 (2018) 161, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Observation of t tH production

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of t tH production”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 231801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231801, arXiv:1804.02610

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011”, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS NOTE-2011/005, 2011. 24

    2011

  60. [68]

    Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics

    T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434 (1999) 435, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006

    1999 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Presentation of search results: the CL s technique

    A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CL s technique”, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 , arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z ]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Measurement of the t ¯tZ and t¯tW cross sections in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the t ¯tZ and t¯tW cross sections in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 072009, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.072009, arXiv:1901.03584

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 08 (2018) 011, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)011, arXiv:1711.02547

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Measurement of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, (2019). arXiv:1907.11270. Submitted to JHEP

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at√s = 7 and 8 TeV

    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 LHC pp collision data at√s = 7 and 8 TeV”, JHEP 08 (2016) 045, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045, arXiv:1606.02266

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The post-Higgs MSSM scenario: Habemus MSSM?

    A. Djouadi et al., “The post-Higgs MSSM scenario: Habemus MSSM?”, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2650, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2650-0 , arXiv:1307.5205

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy Higgs bosons decaying to a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV”, (2019). arXiv:1908.01115. Submitted to JHEP

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Search for dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks in√s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 18, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5486-1 , arXiv:1710.11412. 25 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics ...

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.