Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 48 references

A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read CMS measures the Higgs boson mass at 125.13 GeV in the diphoton channel with 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV data, tightening the combined diphoton result to 125.06 GeV.

desk verdict Solid CMS Run-2 diphoton mass result that halves the previous systematic by fixing the electron–photon scale transfer; the residual Z→μμγ limitation is real but already the quoted leading uncertainty. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28396 v1 pith:ZHJQNIZT submitted 2026-07-30 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex PACS 14.80.Bn13.85.Qk29.40.Vj
keywords HiggsbosonmassdiphotondecayCMSphotonenergyscaleECALcalibration13TeVZtomumugamma
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

This paper reports a precision measurement of the Higgs boson mass using its rare diphoton decay in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. With the full 2016–2018 CMS data set of 138 inverse femtobarns, and after a refined electromagnetic calorimeter calibration that anchors the photon energy scale to Z-boson decays, the mass is found to be 125.13 plus or minus 0.15 GeV. Combining with the earlier 7 and 8 TeV diphoton result yields 125.06 plus or minus 0.14 GeV. The work matters because the Higgs mass is a free parameter of the Standard Model that enters electroweak precision fits and vacuum-stability calculations; a sub-200 MeV determination in a clean, fully reconstructible final state sharpens those tests.

What carries the argument

A three-stage photon energy calibration: electron scales from Z o ee, a simulation-based uniformity correction for radiation damage differences between electrons and photons, and residual photon-versus-electron scale corrections extracted directly from final-state-radiation photons in Z oμμγ events; these corrected energies enter a simultaneous binned likelihood fit of the diphoton mass spectrum across categories defined by a signal-to-background BDT and expected mass resolution.

What would settle it

A statistically independent high-statistics sample of photons near 60 GeV (for example from radiative Z or W decays or from a future larger Z oμμγ data set) that yields a photon energy scale inconsistent with the applied corrections at a level larger than the assigned 0.15–0.25 percent high-ET uncertainty would falsify the mass central value and its systematic error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data recorded by CMS, the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel is measured to be m_H = 125.13 ± 0.15 GeV (0.10 GeV statistical, 0.12 GeV systematic). Combination with the independent CMS 7 and 8 TeV diphoton measurement gives m_H = 125.06 ± 0.14 GeV (0.09 GeV statistical, 0.11 GeV systematic).

Load-bearing premise

The residual difference between photon and electron energy response after the simulation-based radiation-damage correction is fully captured by the Z oμμγ corrections in twenty coarse bins of eta, shower shape and transverse energy, plus a constant high-energy non-linearity uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The combined CMS diphoton mass of 125.06 ± 0.14 GeV becomes a high-precision input to global electroweak fits that constrain the W-boson mass and top-quark mass consistency.
  • The reduced systematic uncertainty (nearly a factor of two relative to the previous CMS 13 TeV diphoton result) strengthens future combinations with the four-lepton channel and with ATLAS.
  • The same refined ECAL calibration and photon-scale procedure can be reused for other precision diphoton measurements (cross sections, differential distributions, and interference studies).
  • The assigned 27 MeV interference uncertainty between gluon-fusion signal and continuum background sets a floor that must be improved or measured directly for still-higher-precision mass determinations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the high-ET non-linearity term is the dominant remaining scale uncertainty, a dedicated high-energy photon calibration sample (e.g., from future high-luminosity running) could push the total systematic below 100 MeV.
  • The close numerical agreement between this diphoton result and the CMS four-lepton mass suggests that a full CMS combination of both channels with the new calibration would already rival the ATLAS combined precision.
  • The discrete-profiling background treatment and S/√B-plus-resolution categorization are portable to other narrow-resonance searches in diphoton final states at the LHC.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the H→γγ channel with the full CMS Run 2 data set (138 fb⁻¹ at √s=13 TeV). A three-stage ECAL energy calibration is used: electron scale and resolution from Z→ee, a simulation-based uniformity correction for radiation-damage differences between electrons and photons, and residual photon-scale corrections from Z→μμγ FSR photons in 20 (η, R9, ET) bins. Events are classified with a diphoton BDT (backgrounds with misidentified jets taken from data control samples) into five categories; signal shapes are sums of Voigtians parameterized in m_H and the background is discrete-profiled from data. The result is m_H=125.13±0.15 GeV=125.13±0.10 (stat)±0.12 (syst) GeV; combination with the earlier CMS 7+8 TeV diphoton measurement yields 125.06±0.14 GeV. Leading systematics (Table 1) are the Z→μμγ statistics (74 MeV), muon momentum scale (55 MeV), high-ET non-linearity (54 MeV), and ggH–continuum interference (27 MeV).

Significance. This is a high-precision SM input measurement. The refined calibration roughly halves the systematic uncertainty relative to the previous CMS diphoton result and brings the total uncertainty into line with the best ATLAS γγ and CMS 4ℓ determinations. The three-stage e/γ calibration strategy, ET-dependent resolution corrections, data-driven BDT background modeling, and explicit interference systematic are concrete technical advances that strengthen the result. The measurement is compatible with existing ATLAS and CMS values and will enter global EW fits and vacuum-stability discussions. Strengths include a full nuisance-parameter treatment, independent control samples for calibration, and a free signal-strength parameter μ.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.1] §5.1 and Fig. 2: the photon energy-scale corrections are shown only as functions of |η| in two ET and two R9 bins. A short statement of the typical correction size (or a table of the 20 values) would help the reader judge the residual e/γ difference that remains after the uniformity step.
  2. [§8.2] §8.2 Residual non-linearity: the 0.15%/0.25% uncertainty is assigned only for ET>80 GeV and set to zero below. Given that the mean photon energy in H→γγ is ~60 GeV, a one-sentence justification that the constant fit below 80 GeV shows no slope (or a cross-check with the Z→ee high-ET tail) would make the coverage argument more transparent.
  3. [Fig. 5] Fig. 5: the vertical scale is labeled “Energy scale uncertainty ×10³”; clarifying whether the plotted quantities are absolute fractional uncertainties (δE/E) would avoid any ambiguity.
  4. [§9] §9: the compatibility of the 13 TeV result with the previous CMS 7+8 TeV diphoton measurement is quoted as 1.2σ under the assumption of zero correlation. A brief remark on why residual common systematics (e.g., theoretical interference modeling) can be neglected would be useful.
  5. [Abstract] Abstract and §10: the combined result is written “125.06±0.14 GeV=125.06±0.09 (stat)±0.11 (syst) GeV”. The arithmetic is correct, but stating the quadrature sum explicitly once would aid quick reading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: experimental mass extraction from independent collision data and control-sample calibrations

full rationale

This is a standard HEP mass measurement, not a first-principles derivation. m_H is extracted by a simultaneous binned likelihood fit to the observed diphoton mass spectra in data categories (§7, §9); the reported value is the fit result, not a quantity redefined from its inputs. Photon energy scale and resolution corrections are derived from independent control samples (Z→ee and Z→μμγ) that do not contain the Higgs signal (§5.1), with residual systematics quantified and propagated (§8, Table 1). The signal model is built from simulation at fixed generated masses and interpolated; the SM width Γ_H = 4.1 MeV is an external fixed input, and the signal strength μ is left free—neither forces m_H by construction. Background shapes are profiled from data sidebands via the discrete profiling method. The 7+8 TeV combination treats independent datasets as uncorrelated. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input, self-definition, or load-bearing unverified self-citation. Score 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard LHC experimental assumptions (detector response, SM production modes for normalization of categories, fixed SM Higgs width) plus the specific calibration hierarchy introduced in this analysis. No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are the nuisance parameters of the energy-scale and resolution corrections, which are constrained by control samples rather than by the Higgs peak itself.

free parameters (5)
  • Photon energy-scale residual corrections (20 bins in |η|, R9, ET) = 0.990–1.000 (bin-dependent)
    Multiplicative scale factors (0.990–1.000) derived from Z→μμγ and applied to data; their statistical and systematic uncertainties dominate the final systematic error on m_H.
  • Electron energy-scale and resolution corrections (iterative, multi-dimensional) = period- and bin-dependent
    Five-step corrections from Z→ee that set the absolute energy scale before the photon residual step; resolution smearing up to ~2%.
  • High-ET non-linearity uncertainty = 0.15% / 0.25%
    Assigned 0.15% (barrel) / 0.25% (endcap) for ET>80 GeV when Z→μμγ statistics are insufficient for fine binning.
  • Interference mass-shift systematic = 27 MeV
    Difference between peak position with and without ggH–continuum interference, taken entirely as a 27 MeV systematic.
  • Signal strength μ = 0.95 ± 0.09
    Floated in the mass fit; best-fit value 0.95 ± 0.06 (stat) ± 0.07 (syst).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SM Higgs width is fixed to Γ_H = 4.1 MeV at m_H = 125 GeV.
    Stated in §7.1 and §9; the lineshape Voigtians use this external LHC Higgs Working Group value.
  • domain assumption Photon and electron showers differ by a calculable radiation-damage-induced light-collection non-uniformity that can be corrected by GEANT4 + FLUKA + LITRANI simulation (the ‘uniformity’ correction).
    Stage-2 calibration (§5.1); applied only to high-R9 photons.
  • domain assumption Background m_γγ shapes in each category are adequately described by the discrete-profiling envelope of exponential, Bernstein, Laurent and power-law families.
    §7.2; choice treated as a discrete nuisance following Dauncey et al.
  • domain assumption Production-mode cross sections and the H→γγ branching fraction follow LHC Higgs Working Group recommendations for category normalizations.
    §4; used to build the composite signal model.
  • standard math Standard maximum-likelihood asymptotic formulae and profile-likelihood intervals are valid for the observed event counts.
    §9 cites Cowan et al. and the CMS COMBINE tool.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZHJQNIZT

@misc{pith2026260728396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZHJQNIZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28396}
}
abstract

A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel is performed using proton-proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data set recorded with the CMS detector between 2016 and 2018 is used, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. A refined detector calibration and new analysis techniques are employed to improve the precision of the results compared to earlier measurements. The Higgs boson mass is measured to be $m_\mathrm{H}$ = 125.13 $\pm$ 0.15 GeV = 125.13 $\pm$ 0.10 (stat) $\pm$ 0.12 (syst) GeV. In addition, a combination with the mass measurement at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV in the diphoton final state is performed resulting in $m_\mathrm{H}$ = 125.06 $\pm$ 0.14 GeV = 125.06 $\pm$ 0.09 (stat) $\pm$ 0.11 (syst) GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the dielectron invariant mass distribution in data and simulation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photon energy scale corrections applied to the data as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the three-body invariant mass distribution in data and simulation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Signal model for the analysis category with the best mass resolution (left), and for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Uncertainties in the energy scale as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data and combined signal and background model fit for all analysis categories, un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Likelihood scans of the Higgs boson mass measured in the H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Summary of the ATLAS and CMS Higgs boson mass measurements using the dipho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

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

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

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

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

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

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

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

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Cosmological aspects of Higgs vacuum metastability

    T. Markkanen, A. Rajantie, and S. Stopyra, “Cosmological aspects of Higgs vacuum metastability”,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5(2018) 40, doi:10.3389/fspas.2018.00040,arXiv:1809.06923

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Electroweak precision tests of the standard model after the discovery of the Higgs boson

    J. Erler and M. Schott, “Electroweak precision tests of the standard model after the discovery of the Higgs boson”,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.106(2019) 68, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2019.02.007,arXiv:1902.05142

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Radiative corrections in the SU(2)-L×U(1) theory: a simple renormalization framework

    A. Sirlin, “Radiative corrections in the SU(2)-L×U(1) theory: a simple renormalization framework”,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 971,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.971

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.22.971 1980

  7. [7]

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

    LHC Higgs Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”,CERN Y ellow Rep.: Monogr.2(2016) 1, doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002,arXiv:1610.07922

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H→γγandH→ZZ ∗ →4ℓdecay channels with the ATLAS detector using √s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp collision data

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H→γγandH→ZZ ∗ →4ℓdecay channels with the ATLAS detector using √s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp collision data”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 251802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.251802,arXiv:2308.04775. 18

    arXiv 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson and measurement of its properties”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3076, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3076-z,arXiv:1407.0558

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel

    CMS Collaboration, “A measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the diphoton decay channel”,Phys. Lett. B805(2020) 135425,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135425, arXiv:2002.06398

    2020

  3. [11]

    Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 092014,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.092014,arXiv:2409.13663

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

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

    2008 doi

  5. [13]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

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

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

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST19(2024) P09004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/P09004,arXiv:2403.15518

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Isolating a light Higgs boson from the diphoton background at the CERN LHC

    Z. Bern, L. Dixon, and C. Schmidt, “Isolating a light Higgs boson from the diphoton background at the CERN LHC”,Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 074018, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.074018,arXiv:hep-ph/0206194

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bounding the Higgs boson width through interferometry

    L. J. Dixon and Y. Li, “Bounding the Higgs boson width through interferometry”,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 111802,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.111802, arXiv:1305.3854. References 19

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

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

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Lepton and photon energy scale and resolution corrections based on the minimization of an analytical likelihood: IJazZ2.0

    F. Couderc, P . Gaigne, and M. Sahin, “Lepton and photon energy scale and resolution corrections based on the minimization of an analytical likelihood: IJazZ2.0”,Results Phys.88(2026) 108728,doi:10.1016/j.rinp.2026.108728,arXiv:2602.17300

    2026

  17. [25]

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

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

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    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”, technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2018

    2017

  19. [27]

    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”, technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2019

    2018

  20. [28]

    Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at √s = 13 TeV”,JHEP07(2021) 027, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)027,arXiv:2103.06956

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

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

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

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

    Merging meets matching in MC@NLO

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

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    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”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Event generation with Sherpa 2.2

    E. Bothmann et al., “Event generation with Sherpa 2.2”,SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.3.034,arXiv:1905.09127

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson properties in the diphoton decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP11(2018) 185, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)185,arXiv:1804.02716

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

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

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

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Overview of the FLUKAcode

    G. Battistoni et al., “Overview of the FLUKAcode”,Ann. Nucl. Energy82(2015) doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2014.11.007

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Litrani: a general purpose Monte-Carlo program simulating light propagation in isotropic or anisotropic media

    F. Gentit, “Litrani: a general purpose Monte-Carlo program simulating light propagation in isotropic or anisotropic media”,Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A485(2002) doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(02)00671-X

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System”, 3, 2016. arXiv:1603.02754.doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785. 20

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Measurements of t tH production and the CP structure of the Yukawa interaction between the Higgs boson and top quark in the diphoton decay channel

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of t tH production and the CP structure of the Yukawa interaction between the Higgs boson and top quark in the diphoton decay channel”,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 061801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.061801,arXiv:2003.10866

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    ¨Uber das Gesetz der Intensit¨atsverteilung innerhalb der Linien eines Gasspektrums

    W. Voigt, “ ¨Uber das Gesetz der Intensit¨atsverteilung innerhalb der Linien eines Gasspektrums”,Sitzungsber. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Math.-Phys. Kl.(1912) 603

    1912

  33. [41]

    Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method

    P . D. Dauncey, M. Kenzie, N. Wardle, and G. J. Davies, “Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method”,JINST10(2015) P04015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/04/P04015,arXiv:1408.6865

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

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

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

    1922

  35. [43]

    Extracting muon momentum scale corrections for hadron collider experiments

    A. Bodek et al., “Extracting muon momentum scale corrections for hadron collider experiments”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2194, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2194-8,arXiv:1208.3710

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics

    T. Junk, “Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A434(1999) 435,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2, arXiv:hep-ex/9902006

    1999 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Presentation of search results: the CLs technique

    A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CLs technique”,J. Phys. G28(2002) 2693, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313

    2002 doi

  38. [46]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

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

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE

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

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.181156. 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Gevorgyan , A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria P .S. Hussain , M. Sonawane...

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.