Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 2 cited by

Reconstruction and identification of pairs of collimated $\tau$-leptons decaying hadronically using $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collision data with the ATLAS detector

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pairs of collimated, hadronically decaying tau leptons can be reconstructed and identified as a single di-tau object down to seed-jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of 50 GeV, with identification scale factors of $1.00\pm0.37$ and $1.01\pm0.27$…

desk verdict A solid, honestly limited ATLAS method paper: new low-pT di-tau tagger with a data-driven scale factor, but the inclusive Zgamma SF needs a quantified extrapolation uncertainty before use in light-resonance searches. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09357 v2 pith:DVEEKQUM submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords tauleptonpairshadronicdecaysboosteddi-tautaggerlarge-radiusjetsdecisiontreedata-to-simulationscalefactorZgammatag-and-probelightresonancesearches
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

When two tau leptons decay hadronically and their parent particle is light but boosted, the visible decay products can overlap so heavily that the standard reconstruction of each individual tau fails. This paper claims that such a collimated pair can instead be recovered as a single 'di-tau' object, built from a large-radius seed jet with two leading subjets, a dedicated energy-scale calibration, and a boosted-decision-tree identifier that separates genuine tau pairs from QCD jets. The validation in data is the central new step: the identification efficiency is measured in $Z(\to\tau\tau)+\gamma$ events from 139 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions, yielding data-to-simulation scale factors of $1.00\pm0.37$ at the Medium working point and $1.01\pm0.27$ at the Tight working point. The scale factors being close to unity means the tagger's modelling is adequate for use, provided the efficiency measured at Z-boson kinematics transfers to the lighter resonances the tagger targets, such as Higgs decays to pairs of light pseudoscalars.

What carries the argument

The central object is the di-tau object: an anti-$k_t$ seed jet of radius $R=1.0$ whose constituents are reclustered into $R=0.2$ subjets, with the two leading subjets assumed to carry the two tau signatures, each with a core cone of $R=0.1$, and the remaining seed-jet area acting as an isolation region. A two-step energy-scale calibration subtracts a pile-up term linear in the number of primary vertices, then applies a response function binned in subjet pseudorapidity and track multiplicity (1- or 3-prong). The identifier is a boosted decision tree on 16 variables drawn from the subjet cores, the subjet areas, the isolation region, and the whole seed jet, trained on truth-matched di-tau objects from $t\bar{t}X$ events with $m_X = 20$ and 60 GeV against fake di-tau objects from fully hadronic $t\bar{t}$ events. The efficiency measurement machinery is the $Z\gamma$ tag-and-probe: a Tight photon selects the events, the BDT score is the discriminant, the $\gamma$+jets and multijet backgrounds are normalised with an ABCD sideband method in the photon isolation-identification plane and their BDT shape reweighted to data, and the scale factor is the ratio of background-subtracted data to truth-matched signal in the signal region.

What would settle it

Compute the scale factor in the same $Z\gamma$ sample in separate bins of seed-jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (for example below and above 150 GeV) or of the subjet angular separation $\Delta R(\mathrm{lead},\mathrm{sublead})$; if the BDT response depends on parent-mass kinematics, the per-bin scale factors will deviate from unity by more than the quoted 26-37% total uncertainties, which the inclusive measurement cannot reveal. The corresponding simulation test is to compare truth-matched di-tau identification efficiencies at fixed reconstructed kinematics between $m_X=20$ GeV events and $Z$-mass events.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that collimated, hadronically decaying tau pairs with seed-jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ as low as 50 GeV can be reconstructed from the two leading $R=0.2$ subjets of an $R=1.0$ seed jet and identified against QCD jets by a boosted decision tree, and that the identification efficiency of this di-tau tagger agrees with data. The efficiency is measured with a tag-and-probe in $Z(\to\tau\tau)+\gamma$ events selected by a photon trigger with $E_{\mathrm{T}}>140$ GeV, with the dominant $\gamma$+jets and multijet backgrounds normalised by an ABCD sideband method and their BDT score shapes reweighted to data. In the signal region the measured efficiencies are about 70% (Medium) and 34% (Tight) at background rejections of about 240 and 3600, giving SF(BDT$>0.35$) $=1.00\pm0.35\,\mathrm{(stat.)}\pm0.13\,\mathrm{(syst.)}$ and SF(BDT$>0.5$) $=1.01\pm0.24\,\mathrm{(stat.)}\pm0.12\,\mathrm{(syst.)}$. The paper interprets these scale factors, both within 26-37% of unity, as demonstrating good data-to-simulation agreement for the di-tau object modelling, and presents the measurement as the step that allows the tagger to be used in future searches where resolved tau reconstruction is insufficient.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that the identification scale factor measured in $Z(\to\tau\tau)+\gamma$ events, where the tau pairs come from a Z boson of roughly 91 GeV, also holds for the much lighter resonances ($m_X$ near 20-60 GeV) that the tagger was built for, and the paper only notes that additional uncertainties may be required in other phase spaces without quantifying this extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Light-resonance searches, for example Higgs decays to pairs of light pseudoscalars with $m_X$ around 20-60 GeV, gain a validated identification efficiency for collimated tau pairs whose decay products overlap and defeat resolved tau reconstruction.
  • The Medium and Tight working points provide measured signal efficiencies of about 70% and 34% at background rejections of about 240 and 3600, so analyses can trade efficiency against rejection at a data-anchored rate.
  • Future studies using the tagger will apply the measured scale factors as event weights to simulated truth-matched di-tau objects, correcting residual data-to-simulation differences in the identification.
  • Analyses may combine the di-tau tagger with the standard resolved tau reconstruction to reject fake di-tau background, improving search sensitivities at the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ values relevant to light resonance searches.
  • The dominant uncertainty on both scale factors is statistical (35% and 24%), so additional collision data will directly sharpen the calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The inclusive scale factor is measured at Z-boson kinematics, and the size of the extrapolation to $m_X\approx20$ GeV targets is left unquantified; binning the scale factor in seed-jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ or in the subjet angular separation $\Delta R(\mathrm{lead},\mathrm{sublead})$ within the existing $Z\gamma$ sample would test whether the efficiency is flat where the tagger will actually be used.
  • Because the classifier is trained on an equal mixture of $m_X=20$ and 60 GeV events while the data probe sits at higher mass and boost, a simulation-level comparison of BDT score distributions at fixed reconstructed kinematics would separate mass-driven efficiency loss from phase-space-driven loss, informing how much of the Medium-to-Tight gap is intrinsic to the classifier.
  • The same seed-jet-plus-subjets structure and the pile-up and response calibration chain could be reused for other highly collimated two-body hadronic decays, such as a boosted $W\to q\bar{q}'$ or a heavy-flavour resonance, retraining the classifier while sharing the calibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This paper describes a new ATLAS algorithm for reconstructing and identifying highly collimated hadronically decaying tau-lepton pairs at low transverse momentum. The reconstruction uses a large-radius jet (R=1.0) and its two leading subjets, and the identification uses a boosted decision tree (BDT) trained on ttbar+X events with X masses of 20 and 60 GeV. The identification efficiency is measured in Zgamma events using 139 fb^-1 of sqrt(s)=13 TeV data. The resulting data-to-simulation scale factors are SF(BDT>0.35)=1.00 +/- 0.37 and SF(BDT>0.5)=1.01 +/- 0.27, with statistical and systematic components given in Table 4. The measurement is statistically limited, with signal purity below 1% in the signal region, and relies on an ABCD method for background normalisation plus a reweighting procedure validated in a validation region.

Significance. If correct, this provides the first measured identification scale factors for a low-pT di-tau tagger in ATLAS, enabling future searches for light resonances decaying to tau pairs. The analysis is careful: the ABCD background estimate, the CR/VR-validated reweighting, and the full propagation of experimental and theoretical systematics are all standard and appropriate. The authors are transparent about the fact that the Zgamma phase space does not match the ttbar+X target phase space and that additional uncertainties may be required for other analyses. The main limitation is that no quantitative extrapolation uncertainty is provided; this is acknowledged but left to future work.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.4 and Conclusions] The paper states that 'additional uncertainties may be required' for analyses targeting a different phase space, but it does not provide any quantitative estimate of the extrapolation uncertainty. Given the strong dependence of the identification efficiency on Delta R(lead, sublead) and seed pT shown in Figures 7(c) and 7(d), and the fact that the measurement uses 90 < pT(seed) < 360 GeV, future analyses of light resonances (mX = 20-60 GeV) would benefit from an explicit statement that the inclusive SF is only valid in the measured phase space, or from a simulation-based closure test comparing the SF in the Zgamma and ttbar+X phase spaces.
  2. [Figure 7] Consider overlaying the kinematic distributions of the reconstructed di-tau objects in the Zgamma signal region on the efficiency curves in Figures 7(c) and 7(d); this would help the reader assess how much of the efficiency variation is actually probed by the measurement and quantify the extrapolation to the light-resonance topology.
  3. [Section 5.3] The claim of 'no evidence of classifier overtraining' is based on visual inspection of Figure 6(a); adding a quantitative test statistic (e.g., a Kolmogorov-Smirnov p-value) for the training and testing BDT score distributions would strengthen this statement.
  4. [Section 1] In the sentence 'used for a heavy, narrow, scalar resonance search in the high mass regime of 1-3TeV', the unit should read '1-3 TeV' with a space before TeV.
  5. [Table 4] In the 'Statistical' uncertainty category, the meaning of 'MC' is not explicitly defined; the text should clarify whether this refers to the finite size of the simulated signal sample only or to all simulated samples entering the measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the di-tau tagger scale factor is measured from data-minus-background and MC signal yields at fixed BDT thresholds, with background normalization and shape derived from control regions rather than from the target SF.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (1), SF = (N_data - N_non-di-tau) / N_true di-tau, is an efficiency ratio measured at fixed BDT thresholds after background subtraction. The ABCD method normalizes the total predicted yield to data inclusively, and the BDT reweighting function is fitted to the control region (CR) and validated in the validation region (VR), not fitted to the signal-region yields used in the SF. The per-working-point signal yields (49.7 and 24.0 events for Medium and Tight) are therefore free outcomes, not parameters constrained to reproduce the SF. No equation in the derivation reduces to SF = 1 by construction; the closeness to unity is an empirical result with 26-37% uncertainties. Self-citations to Ref. [7] (boosted di-tau reconstruction) and Ref. [68] (track selection) provide the starting algorithm and standard track definitions, but the paper's new contribution - the low-pT seed-jet reconstruction, dedicated energy-scale calibration, new BDT, and the data efficiency measurement - does not rest on these citations as proof of its own result. The acknowledged phase-space mismatch between Zgamma and lighter resonances is a limitation or extrapolation concern, not a circularity, since the measured SF is still an independent number in the probed phase space.

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

The free parameters are calibration and background-estimation nuisance parameters, not physics constants; none of them are fitted to force the SF result. The central measurement is a direct count ratio, so the parameter count does not indicate a fitted derivation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • BDT working point thresholds = 0.35 and 0.5
    Score cuts defining Medium and Tight operating points; chosen as benchmarks, not fitted to data. The SFs are quoted at these thresholds.
  • Pileup correction coefficients A(|eta|) = not listed numerically; see Fig. 4(b)
    Linear slope of subjet pT versus number of primary vertices, fitted to ttbar X simulation in five |eta| bins; used in pT calibration for all subsequent steps.
  • Detector response function R(pT_corr, |eta|, Nprong) = binned values in Fig. 5
    Ratio of corrected to generated visible momentum measured in simulation, used to calibrate subjet pT; values below unity and prong-dependent.
  • Background reweighting polynomial (fifth order) = coefficients not reported
    Fitted to the observed CR di-tau BDT distribution and applied to gamma+jets and multijet samples in the SR; alternative functions used to assign an uncertainty.
  • ABCD leakage coefficients f_B, f_C, f_D and correlation R_c = Table 2 values, e.g., f_B=3.96% in CR
    Estimated from gamma+jets and multijet MC, used to correct the ABCD background normalisation; propagated with generator variations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo generators (MadGraph, Powheg, Sherpa, Pythia, Herwig) accurately model hard scattering, parton showers, hadronisation and underlying event for all signal and background processes.
    Assumed throughout Section 3; all efficiencies and background shapes in the SF calculation depend on it.
  • domain assumption The ATLAS detector simulation and reconstruction software accurately reproduce the detector response for tracks, calorimeter clusters, jets, taus, and photons.
    Required for the BDT training, energy-scale calibration, and MC signal efficiency used in the SF numerator/denominator.
  • domain assumption The two leading subjets of the R=1.0 seed jet contain the visible decay products of the two tau leptons.
    Stated in Section 5.1 as valid in approximately 90% of the considered ttbar X samples; the truth-matching definition and all reconstruction efficiency numbers rely on this.
  • domain assumption The ABCD method's assumption of small correlation between photon identification and isolation is valid after correction with R_c estimated from multijet MC.
    Section 6.2; the gamma+jets and multijet background normalisations, which dominate the SR, depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The BDT trained on ttbar X signal with mX=20 and 60 GeV generalises to other light-resonance masses and to Zgamma signal events.
    Section 5.3 uses only these two mass points; the SF measurement in Zgamma implicitly assumes the classifier transfers, and the paper does not provide a dedicated validation at other masses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstruction and identification of pairs of collimated $\tau$-leptons decaying hadronically using $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collision data with the ATLAS detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DVEEKQUM

@misc{pith2026241109357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstruction and identification of pairs of collimated $\tau$-leptons decaying hadronically using $\sqrts=13$ TeV $pp$ collision data with the ATLAS detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DVEEKQUM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09357}
}
abstract

This paper describes an algorithm for reconstructing and identifying a highly collimated hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton pair with low transverse momentum. When two $\tau$-leptons are highly collimated, their visible decay products might overlap, degrading the reconstruction performance for each of the $\tau$-leptons. This requires a dedicated treatment that attempts to tag it as a single object. The reconstruction algorithm is based on a large radius jet and its associated two leading subjets, and the identification uses a boosted decision tree to discriminate between signatures from $\tau^+\tau^-$ systems and those arising from QCD jets. The efficiency of the identification algorithm is measured in $Z\gamma$ events using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 $\mbox{fb}^{-1}$. The resulting data-to-simulation scale factors are close to unity with uncertainties ranging from 26% to 37%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distributions of (a) visible angular distance Δ𝑅vis, (b) leading 𝜏had-vis 𝑝T and (c) subleading 𝜏had-vis 𝑝T in 𝑋 → 𝜏had𝜏had decays from 𝑡𝑡𝑋¯ events, normalised to unit area, for two different 𝑚𝑋 values. produced with transverse momenta sizeable enough to result in decay products that are highly collimated. This is demonstrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the reconstructed di-𝜏 object topology [7] for one seed jet with 𝑅 = 1.0 and two subjets with 𝑅 = 0.2. were expected to be produced with large individual transverse momenta, and the reconstruction was only performed for seed jets with 𝑝T > 300 GeV. However, when a light resonance decays into a boosted di-𝜏, the 𝜏had-vis 𝑝T spectrum is rather soft, as demonstrated in Figures 1(b) and 1(c). I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Di-𝜏 reconstruction efficiency (dots) and two resolved 𝜏had-vis reconstruction efficiency (triangles) as a function of (a) the visible angular separation Δ𝑅vis between the two particle-level 𝜏had-vis and (b) the average number of interactions ⟨𝜇⟩, measured in simulated 𝑡𝑡𝑋¯ events. The 𝑡𝑡𝑋¯ sample includes events with 𝑚𝑋 = 20 GeV and 𝑚𝑋 = 60 GeV in equal proportions. The plateau value in (b) for the two resolved 𝜏ha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Mean subjet 𝑝 reco T as a function of the number of reconstructed primary vertices for 0.8 < |𝜂reco| ≤ 1.3, where the line is the linear fit from which correction coefficients are derived. (b) Measured linear pileup-correction coefficients 𝐴(|𝜂reco|). These are obt…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detector response function for (a) 1-prong and (b) 3-prong subjets as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the classifier training, showing the (a) BDT score distributions for signal and background events and (b) background rejection factor versus signal identification efficiency, corresponding to the trained BDT score distributions. The two markers represent the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Signal identification efficiency at constant BDT selections, measured in 𝑡𝑡𝑋¯ events, as functions of (a) the di-𝜏 pseudorapidity 𝜂reco, (b) the average number of interactions ⟨𝜇⟩, (c) the angular distance Δ𝑅 between the two leading di-𝜏 subjets and (d) the transverse …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Background identification efficiency at constant BDT selections, measured in 𝑡𝑡¯ events, as functions of (a) the di-𝜏 pseudorapidity 𝜂reco, (b) the average number of interactions ⟨𝜇⟩, (c) the angular distance Δ𝑅 between the two leading di-𝜏 subjets and (d) the transver…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Di-𝜏 BDT score distribution with 𝛾+jets and multijet yields ABCD-normalised in the CR, before event reweighting. Simulated events from 𝑍𝛾, 𝑍𝛾𝛾 and 𝑍+jets, where 𝑍 → 𝜏𝜏, containing a reconstructed di-𝜏 object geometrically matched to a particle-level 𝜏 + 𝜏 − pair are ref…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Di-𝜏 BDT score distributions with 𝛾+jets and multijet yields ABCD-normalised in the VR (a) before and (b) after event reweighting, and in the SR (c) before and (d) after event reweighting. Simulated events from 𝑍𝛾, 𝑍𝛾𝛾 and 𝑍+jets, where 𝑍 → 𝜏𝜏, containing a reconstruct…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Search for Lorentz-boosted di-$\tau$ resonances produced in association with top quark pairs in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    No excess is seen; ATLAS sets a 0.19 fb model-independent visible cross-section limit and 2HDM σ×BR limits of 0.4–0.05 pb for ma = 20–85 GeV using boosted di-τ reconstruction.

  2. Search for Higgs boson decays into a pair of pseudoscalar particles in the $\gamma\gamma\tau_{\text{had}}\tau_{\text{had}}$ final state using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV pp collisions, ATLAS finds no excess and sets 95% CL upper limits of 0.2% to 2% on B(H to aa to gamma gamma tau tau) for m_a from 10 to 60 GeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Navas et al.,Review of particle physics, Phys

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

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

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

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

    2008

  4. [4]

    Cacciari, G

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

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Cacciari, G

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

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 490, arXiv:1603.02934 [hep-ex]. 26

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Reconstruction and identification of boosted di-𝜏 systems in a search for Higgs boson pairs using13TeV proton–proton collision data in ATLAS, JHEP11(2020) 163, arXiv: 2007.14811 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Mühlleitner, M

    M. Mühlleitner, M. O. P. Sampaio, R. Santos and J. Wittbrodt, Phenomenological Comparison of Models with Extended Higgs Sectors, JHEP08(2017) 132, arXiv: 1703.07750 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Casolino, T

    M. Casolino, T. Farooque, A. Juste, T. Liu and M. Spannowsky, Probing a light CP-odd scalar in di-top-associated production at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 498, arXiv:1507.07004 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chang, T

    W.-F. Chang, T. Modak and J. N. Ng,Signal for a light singlet scalar at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 055020, arXiv:1711.05722 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Chang, R

    S. Chang, R. Dermisek, J. F. Gunion and N. Weiner,Nonstandard Higgs Boson Decays, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.58 (2008) 75, arXiv:0801.4554 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Silveira and A

    V. Silveira and A. Zee,Scalar Phantoms, Phys. Lett. B161 (1985) 136

    1985

  5. [13]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy, Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition, JHEP08(2007) 010, arXiv: 0705.2425 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. Ipek, D. McKeen and A. E. Nelson, Renormalizable model for the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess from dark matter annihilation, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 055021, arXiv:1404.3716 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Blinov, J

    N. Blinov, J. Kozaczuk, D. E. Morrissey and C. Tamarit, Electroweak Baryogenesis from Exotic Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 035012, arXiv:1504.05195 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Craig, A

    N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler and R. Sundrum,Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC, JHEP 07(2015) 105, arXiv:1501.05310 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert and A. Thamm,Collider Probes of Axion-Like Particles, JHEP 12(2017) 044, arXiv:1708.00443 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dermíšek and J

    R. Dermíšek and J. F. Gunion,Escaping the Large Fine-Tuning and Little Hierarchy Problems in the Next to Minimal Supersymmetric Model andℎ→𝑎𝑎 Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.95 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0502105

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Curtin and C

    D. Curtin and C. B. Verhaaren,Discovering uncolored naturalness in exotic Higgs decays, JHEP12(2015) 072, arXiv:1506.06141 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Improved reconstruction of highly boosted𝜏-lepton pairs in the 𝜏𝜏→( 𝜇𝜈𝜇𝜈𝜏)(hadrons+𝜈𝜏) decay channels with the ATLAS detector, (2024), arXiv: 2412.14937 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    2010

  14. [22]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]. 27

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

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

    2018

  16. [24]

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

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    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]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, ATLAS-CONF-2019-021, 2019,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2677054

    2019

  19. [27]

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

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    G. C. Branco et al.,Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1, arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    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]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    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]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    2014

  25. [33]

    Frixione, G

    S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi and P. Nason, A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction, JHEP 09(2007) 126, arXiv:0707.3088 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP 11(2004) 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    2004 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method, JHEP 11(2007) 070, arXiv:0709.2092 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  28. [36]

    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]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

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

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

    2016

  31. [39]

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

    2001

  32. [40]

    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]. 28

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gleisberg and S

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

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

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

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Schumann and F

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

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Höche, F

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

    2012 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Höche, F

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

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP 11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann and F. Siegert,QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP 05(2009) 053, arXiv:0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Siegert, A practical guide to event generation for prompt photon production with Sherpa, J

    F. Siegert, A practical guide to event generation for prompt photon production with Sherpa, J. Phys. G44(2017) 044007, arXiv:1611.07226 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Frixione, Isolated photons in perturbative QCD, Phys

    S. Frixione, Isolated photons in perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 369, arXiv: hep-ph/9801442

    1998 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    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]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Anastasiou, L

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

    2004 arXiv

  47. [55]

    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

    2016

  48. [56]

    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]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Electron and photon efficiencies in LHC Run 2 with the ATLAS experiment, JHEP05(2024) 162, arXiv:2308.13362 [hep-ex]. 29

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

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

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

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

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

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

    2017 arXiv

  53. [61]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

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

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction and its significance with the ATLAS detector using140fb−1 of√𝑠= 13TeV𝑝𝑝 collisions, (2024), arXiv: 2402.05858 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for Higgs boson decays into two new low-mass spin-0 particles in the 4𝑏 channel with the ATLAS detector using𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 112006, arXiv:2005.12236 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    CMS Collaboration,Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson in the boosted𝜇𝜇𝜏𝜏 final state in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, JHEP08(2020) 139, arXiv:2005.08694 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for Higgs boson decays into a pair of pseudoscalar particles in the 𝑏𝑏𝜇𝜇 final state with the ATLAS detector in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 012006, arXiv:2110.00313 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Identification and energy calibration of hadronically decaying tau leptons with the ATLAS experiment in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 8TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 303, arXiv: 1412.7086 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Reconstruction, Energy Calibration, and Identification of Hadronically Decaying Tau Leptons in the ATLAS Experiment for Run-2 of the LHC, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-045, 2015, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2064383

    2015

  61. [69]

    Breiman, J

    L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. A. Olshen and C. J. Stone,Classification and Regression Trees, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017,isbn: 978-1-315-13947-0, 978-0-412-04841-8

    2017

  62. [70]

    Freund and R

    Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, ‘Experiments with a New Boosting Algorithm’, International Conference on Machine Learning, 1996, url: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1836349

    1996

  63. [71]

    Freund and R

    Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, A Decision-Theoretic Generalization of On-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting, J. Comput. Syst. Sci.55(1997) 119

    1997

  64. [72]

    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]. 30

    2020 arXiv

  65. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the cross section for isolated-photon plus jet production in 𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B780 (2018) 578, arXiv: 1801.00112 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of𝑊± and𝑍 Boson Production Cross Sections in𝑝𝑝 Collisions at√𝑠= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, ATLAS-CONF-2015-039, 2015, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2045487

    2015

  67. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photons cross section in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 7TeV with the ATLAS detector using4.6fb−1, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 052004, arXiv: 1311.1440 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2922210. 31 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 105, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 124, S. Abdelhameed 120a, K. Abeling 57, N.J. Abicht 51, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 46, ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.