Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Measurements of differential cross-sections of $WbWb$ production in the dilepton channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measurements of $WbWb$ production in the dilepton channel favor the diagram-removal scheme for $\bar{t}t$/$tW$ interference, disfavoring diagram subtraction and the $bb4l$ generator.

desk verdict Full Run-2 WbWb differential measurement with about half the uncertainty of the 2018 result; the m_bl^minimax variable clearly disfavors the DS and bb4l interference schemes, making this a key new input for generator tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14700 v2 pith:Z2PAJAGR submitted 2025-06-17 hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords Wbproductiontop-quarkpairsingletoptWttbar/tinterferencedifferentialcross-sectionunfoldingLHCparticle-levelfiducial
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 attempts to determine, with data, which scheme for handling the overlap between top-quark pair production and single-top $tW$ production best describes the $WbWb$ final state. Using 140 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton--proton collisions, the analysis measures particle-level differential cross-sections in the dilepton channel and compares them with next-to-leading-order predictions. The comparison shows that the diagram-removal (DR) scheme, in which doubly resonant diagrams are removed from the $tW$ sample, agrees with the interference-sensitive $m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}}$ spectrum better than diagram subtraction or a generator of the full $bb4l$ final state, both of which are excluded at $p<0.01$. The measurement also reveals that no single generator describes every observable in the inclusive region, and it achieves a factor-of-two improvement in precision over the previous ATLAS result. If the ranking is correct, generator developers now have a concrete target: reproduce the data's interference tail and the simultaneous pattern of the eleven measured distributions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the variable $m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}} \equiv \min\{ \max(m_{b_1 l_1}, m_{b_2 l_2}), \max(m_{b_1 l_2}, m_{b_2 l_1}) \}$, which stays below the top-quark mass for doubly resonant $\bar{t}t$ events and therefore becomes sensitive to singly resonant $tW$ interference at high values. The measurement chain corrects the detector-level distribution for acceptance, efficiency, and resolution via iterative Bayesian unfolding, with all corrections derived from the nominal DR-scheme Powheg+Pythia8 signal sample, and then compares the unfolded spectra with model predictions. The DR and DS schemes are the two standard prescriptions for removing the double counting between the $\bar{t}t$ and $tW$ samples; the difference between them is the dominant modeling uncertainty in the interference-sensitive bins.

What would settle it

Recompute the unfolded $m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}}$ cross-section using acceptance and efficiency corrections from the DS or $bb4l$ generator in place of the nominal DR sample; if the high-mass tail shifts by more than the quoted systematic uncertainties, or if the $\chi^2$ ordering of DR and DS reverses, then the reported preference is an artifact of the unfolding model. As a second check, evaluate the published covariance matrix against a future $bb4l$ prediction that includes a full set of systematic uncertainties; a $p$-value above 0.01 would overturn the paper's disfavoring of that model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is the unfolded particle-level cross-section for $WbWb$ production as a function of $m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}}$, measured in a fiducial region requiring exactly two $b$-jets, one electron and one muon of opposite charge. In the interference-sensitive tail above about 180 GeV, where doubly resonant $\bar{t}t$ contributions are kinematically suppressed, the data agree best with the DR-scheme Powheg+Pythia8 prediction ($\chi^2/9 = 12.8$, $p = 0.17$). The DS scheme gives $\chi^2/9 = 39.1$ and the $bb4l$ final-state generator gives $\chi^2/9 = 28.6$, each with $p<0.01$, implying that neither describes the interference as implemented. Even the favored DR prediction does not fully capture the extreme tail, and the paper notes this measurement should inform future versions of the $bb4l$ generator.

Load-bearing premise

The unfolding corrections that shape the measured cross-section come from the nominal DR-scheme Powheg+Pythia8 signal sample; if that sample mis-models the relative fraction of $\bar{t}t$ versus $tW$ events, or their kinematics in the high-$m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}}$ region, the data-model comparison and the preference for DR could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The DR-scheme Powheg+Pythia8 prediction is the best available description of the interference-sensitive $m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}}$ spectrum, while the DS scheme and the $bb4l$ final-state generator are excluded at $p<0.01$.
  • In the two-$b$-jet-inclusive region, none of the tested NLO-plus-parton-shower generators describes all eleven observables simultaneously; reweighting the $\bar{t}t$ component to NNLO makes PWG+PY8 (NNLO rew.) the only prediction that describes every variable.
  • The measured integrated fiducial cross-sections, $5.77^{+0.27}_{-0.29}$ pb (exclusive) and $5.97^{+0.27}_{-0.30}$ pb (inclusive), are consistent with all predictions within uncertainties and benchmark how generators model the fiducial acceptance.
  • Uncertainties in the interference-sensitive bins are dominated by the choice of $\bar{t}t$/$tW$ scheme and by parton-shower modeling, with per-bin total uncertainties near 10% or below, roughly half the previous ATLAS measurement's level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $bb4l$ generator's failure in the tail despite being theoretically the most complete treatment suggests its interference prescription or its matching scheme needs adjustment; the published spectra give a precise target for that work.
  • Since the unfolding corrections depend on the relative normalisation of $\bar{t}t$ and $tW$, the data could be reinterpreted to constrain the $tW$/ $\bar{t}t$ ratio, effectively turning the analysis into a measurement of the single-top fraction in $WbWb$ events.
  • A complementary measurement requiring three $b$-tagged jets would probe interference effects in a phase-space region where combinatorics, not the doubly-resonant suppression, governs $m_{bl}^{\text{minimax}}$, providing a cross-check on the DR preference.
  • The measured failure of all NLO+PS predictions for the transverse momentum of the $bbll$ and $bb4l$ systems points to missing higher-order QCD corrections for additional radiation, which a future full $bb4l$ NNLO+PS calculation could address.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents measurements of particle-level differential cross-sections for WbWb production in the dilepton (eμ) channel using 140 fb^-1 of pp collisions at 13 TeV recorded by ATLAS during Run 2. Events with one electron, one muon, and at least two b-tagged jets define the 2b-inclusive fiducial region; a region with exactly two b-jets defines the 2b-exclusive fiducial region used for the interference-sensitive observable m_bl^minimax. Detector effects are corrected using acceptance, efficiency, and iterative Bayesian unfolding (Eq. (2)) derived from the nominal Powheg+Pythia8 sample with the DR scheme for t-tbar/tW overlap removal, and eleven observables are unfolded. The headline result is the normalised m_bl^minimax cross-section in the 2b-exclusive region: PWG+PY8 with DR gives the best agreement (chi2/NDF = 12.8/9, p = 0.17), while PWG+PY8 with DS (39.1/9, p < 0.01) and the Powheg bb4l full-final-state generator (28.6/9, p < 0.01) are disfavored. In the 2b-inclusive region, none of the NLO+PS predictions describes all observables simultaneously, with the NNLO-reweighted PWG+PY8 sample performing best overall. Integrated fiducial cross-sections of 5.77 pb (2b-exclusive) and 5.97 pb (2b-inclusive) are reported. Uncertainties follow standard ATLAS practice, with closure-based signal-modelling systematics and 10k pseudo-experiments for the statistical component.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the most precise measurement of WbWb production in the dilepton channel at 13 TeV, improving on the earlier 36 fb^-1 measurement by roughly a factor of two in uncertainty and providing the first particle-level m_bl^minimax measurement with full Run-2 statistics. The central discrimination (DR-scheme PWG+PY8 in agreement with p = 0.17, while DS and the bb4l generator are disfavored at p < 0.01) is a genuinely useful constraint on t-tbar/tW interference modelling. I examined the principal correctness risk, namely that the unfolding corrections in Eq. (2) are computed from the nominal DR sample in the tail where acceptance and efficiency drop sharply (Sec. 5.2, Fig. 5); the closure-based signal-modelling systematic of Sec. 5.3.1 directly propagates alternative-generator corrections into the covariance used for Table 2, so the DS exclusion is conservative with respect to this effect, and the residual limitation (no alternative-unfolded data set shown) is a standard, non-blocking one.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 6.4, Sec. 7, Table 6] The quoted systematic uncertainties for the integrated fiducial cross-sections are inconsistent across the paper: Section 6.4 gives 5.77 +0.27/-0.29 pb and 5.97 +0.27/-0.30 pb, Section 7 gives 5.77 +0.27/-0.30 pb and 5.97 +0.28/-0.31 pb, and neither set rounds exactly to the percentages in Table 6 (+4.6/-5.2% and +4.6/-5.1%); please harmonize these numbers.
  2. [Sec. 4.2] There are typographical errors in Section 4.2: 'satify' should be 'satisfy', 'identificationMedium' is missing a space before the word 'Medium', and the sentence 'The large number of events collected ... allow' should use the singular verb 'allows'.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, Sec. 4.3] The definition of the 2b-exclusive region would benefit from an explicit statement of how the two b-tagging working points combine: the selection is N_b-tags >= 2 at the 70% WP together with N_b-tags = 2 at the 85% WP, which (because 70%-WP jets are a subset of 85%-WP jets) is equivalent to exactly two 70%-WP-tagged jets with no additional 85%-WP-tagged jet; the current phrasing mixes the two working points without spelling out the logical relation.
  4. [Sec. 3.1.2, Table 2, Sec. 6.2] The p-value quoted for PWG+PY8 (bb4l) in Table 2 and the statement in Section 6.2 that the bb4l sample 'does not fulfil this expectation' should carry the caveat directly at the point of the comparison, namely that the bb4l generator is still under internal review with an incomplete systematic set and that its own theoretical uncertainties are not included in the chi2; the caveat currently appears only in Sections 3.1.2 and 7, and I do not consider this blocking because the central DR-versus-DS discrimination does not rely on the bb4l comparison.
  5. [References] Reference [63] lists the year as '2013' for an ATL-PHYS-PUB-2023-029 note; the year should be 2023.
  6. [Sec. 5.1, figure captions] Section 5.1 states that the first and last bins do not contain under- or overflow events except for N_jets, whereas the captions of Figures 2-4 state that events beyond the horizontal axis are included in the last bin for presentation purposes; please clarify that the overflow handling in the detector-level control distributions differs from the binning used for the cross-section extraction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified: unfolding model dependence is handled by a closure-based systematic and does not force the DR/DS comparison.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The measured cross-sections are obtained from data counts corrected by acceptance, efficiency and migration factors computed from the nominal Powheg+Pythia8 DR sample (Eq. (2)), and the same generator family is then compared with the unfolded data. This is a standard unfolding convention, not a circular prediction, because the corrections are bin-by-bin response ratios rather than fitted parameters. The paper explicitly evaluates the model dependence in Sec. 5.3.1: alternative signal samples, including the DS sample, are unfolded with the nominal corrections and the difference from their own particle-level spectra is assigned as the signal-modelling uncertainty. The DR/DS discrimination in Table 2 therefore reflects a genuine data-driven comparison, with the unfolding-model dependence propagated into the covariance matrix. The m_bl^minimax variable is adopted from Ref. [26], but the measurement, unfolding, and model comparisons in this paper are new and do not reduce to that reference. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Self-citations such as Refs. [19], [26], and [46] provide generator settings, an observable definition, and a technical tool from prior ATLAS work, but none of these is used to forbid alternatives or to define the central result in terms of itself. The remaining risk that the true tW/tbar composition differs from the nominal DR sample is a recognized systematic limitation, not a circularity, and it is quantified and symmetrized into the quoted uncertainties.

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

The analysis introduces no fitted free parameters and no new physical entities. The central measurement rests on standard ATLAS detector simulation and top-quark MC modeling assumptions, which the paper propagates as systematic uncertainties.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The WbWb final state is dominated by ttbar and tW production, with non-resonant WWbb contributions negligible.
    Used to define the signal as the sum of ttbar and tW samples in Section 3.1.1, with the non-resonant contribution cross-checked with the Powheg+Pythia8 bb4l sample.
  • domain assumption Diagram removal (DR) is a valid scheme for separating ttbar and tW amplitudes in the nominal signal sample.
    The nominal tW sample uses DR (Section 3.1.1), and the DS alternative is treated as a modeling uncertainty; the measurement's model comparisons depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption Particle-level objects defined by stable particles, dressing, and ghost-associated b-hadrons provide an appropriate fiducial definition for generator comparison.
    Section 4.4 defines the particle-level phase space; the physics conclusions rely on this definition being a sensible benchmark.
  • domain assumption The iterative Bayesian unfolding with four iterations converges and does not introduce significant bias.
    Section 5 states four iterations balance stability and statistical growth; the effect of varying by one is negligible.
  • domain assumption The MC simulation of the ATLAS detector response is accurate within the quoted systematic uncertainties.
    Detector corrections and uncertainties are taken from calibrations in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.5; the whole unfolding chain depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurements of differential cross-sections of $WbWb$ production in the dilepton channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2PAJAGR

@misc{pith2026250614700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurements of differential cross-sections of $WbWb$ production in the dilepton channel in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2PAJAGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14700}
}
abstract

At the Large Hadron Collider, the $WbWb$ final state is expected to be dominated by $t\bar{t}$ production with a contribution from single-top processes. Differential cross-sections for $WbWb$ production in the dilepton decay channel are measured at the particle level as a function of various kinematic variables. The analysis is based on data from proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider over the period from 2015 to 2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 140 fb$^{-1}$. Measurements are performed within the fiducial phase-space defined by the presence of two $b$-jets and one electron and one muon of opposite charges. The differential cross-sections are corrected for detector effects and unfolded to the particle level. Results are compared with predictions from Monte Carlo event generators at next-to-leading order in perturbative quantum chromodynamics. These measurements provide valuable constraints on the modelling of $WbWb$ production and the interference between doubly resonant and singly resonant $WbWb$ production.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Towards NNLO QCD predictions for off-shell top-quark pair production and decays

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The first NNLO QCD prediction for off-shell W+W-bbbar production with massive bottom quarks at the LHC, using a double-pole approximation for the two-loop virtual and an on-shell matching for non-factorisable corrections.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 98 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Evans and P

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

    2008

  2. [2]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of top-quark pair differential and double-differential cross-sections in theℓ+jets channel with𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 1028, arXiv:1908.07305 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 1092

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Inclusive and differential cross-sections for dilepton𝑡¯𝑡 production measured in√𝑠= 13TeV𝑝𝑝 collisions with the ATLAS detector, JHEP07(2023) 141, arXiv: 2303.15340 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of differential cross-sections in𝑡¯𝑡 and𝑡¯𝑡+jets production in the lepton+jets final state in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using140fb−1 of ATLAS data, JHEP08 (2024) 182, arXiv:2406.19701 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of differential𝑡¯𝑡 production cross sections in the full kinematic range using lepton+jets events from proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 092013, arXiv:2108.02803 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of𝑡¯𝑡 normalised multi-differential cross sections in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 658, arXiv: 1904.05237 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein and C. Schwinn, Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation, Nucl. Phys. B855(2012) 695, arXiv:1109.1536 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov and P. Nason,Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation, Phys. Lett. B710(2012) 612, arXiv:1111.5869 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Bärnreuther, M

    P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon and A. Mitov,Percent-Level-Precision Physics at the Tevatron: Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order QCD Corrections to𝑞 ¯𝑞→𝑡¯𝑡+𝑋, Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 132001, arXiv:1204.5201 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov,NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels, JHEP12(2012) 054, arXiv:1207.0236 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction, JHEP01(2013) 080, arXiv:1210.6832 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Czakon, P

    M. Czakon, P. Fiedler and A. Mitov, Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders ThroughO(𝛼4 𝑆), Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (2013) 252004, arXiv:1303.6254 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2930, arXiv:1112.5675 [hep-ph]. 39

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Catani, S

    S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit and J. Mazzitelli, Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO, JHEP07 (2019) 100, arXiv:1906.06535 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. D. White, S. Frixione, E. Laenen and F. Maltoni,Isolating Wt production at the LHC, JHEP11 (2009) 074, arXiv:0908.0631 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, C. White and B. R. Webber, Single-top hadroproduction in association with a𝑊 boson, JHEP07 (2008) 029, arXiv: 0805.3067 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hollik, J

    W. Hollik, J. M. Lindert and D. Pagani, NLO corrections to squark-squark production and decay at the LHC, JHEP03(2013) 139, arXiv: 1207.1071 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Demartin, B

    F. Demartin, B. Maier, F. Maltoni, K. Mawatari and M. Zaro, tWH associated production at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 34, arXiv: 1607.05862 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Ravindran, J

    V. Ravindran, J. Smith and W. L. Van Neerven,Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to differential distributions of Higgs boson production in hadron-hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B634 (2002) 247, arXiv:hep-ph/0201114

    2002 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, S. Kallweit and S. Pozzorini, NLO QCD corrections to off-shell top-antitop production with leptonic decays at hadron colliders, JHEP10 (2012) 110, arXiv:1207.5018 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bevilacqua, M

    G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, A. van Hameren, C. G. Papadopoulos and M. Worek,Complete off-shell effects in top quark pair hadroproduction with leptonic decay at next-to-leading order, JHEP02 (2011) 083, arXiv:1012.4230 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cascioli, S

    F. Cascioli, S. Kallweit, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini, A unified NLO description of top-pair and associated Wt production, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2783, arXiv:1312.0546 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Frederix, Top Quark Induced Backgrounds to Higgs Production in the𝑊𝑊(∗)→𝑙𝑙𝜈𝜈 Decay Channel at Next-to-Leading-Order in QCD, Phys

    R. Frederix, Top Quark Induced Backgrounds to Higgs Production in the𝑊𝑊(∗)→𝑙𝑙𝜈𝜈 Decay Channel at Next-to-Leading-Order in QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) 082002, arXiv: 1311.4893 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert, P. Nason, C. Oleari and S. Pozzorini,An NLO+PS generator for𝑡¯𝑡 and𝑊𝑡 production and decay including non-resonant and interference effects, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 691, arXiv:1607.04538 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Probing the Quantum Interference between Singly and Doubly Resonant Top-Quark Production in𝑝𝑝 Collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 152002, arXiv:1806.04667 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

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

    2008

  20. [28]

    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. 40

    2010

  21. [29]

    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]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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

  23. [31]

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

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

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

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

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

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

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

    2010 arXiv

  28. [36]

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

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

    2003

  29. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the Fast ATLAS Tracking Simulation (FATRAS) and the ATLAS Fast Calorimeter Simulation (FastCaloSim) with single particles, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2014-001, 2014,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1669341

    2014

  30. [38]

    Sjöstrand, S

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

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

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

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7 TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    2014

  35. [43]

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

    2001

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

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

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

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Studies of𝑡¯𝑡/𝑡𝑊 interference effects in𝑏 ¯𝑏ℓ+ℓ−′ 𝜈 ¯𝜈′ final states with Powhegand MadGraph5_aMC@NLO setups, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-042, 2021, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2792254. 41

    2021

  39. [47]

    Frixione, G

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

    2007 arXiv

  40. [48]

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

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

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Frixione, P

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

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    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

  44. [52]

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

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

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

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

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Brooks and P

    H. Brooks and P. Skands,Coherent showers in decays of colored resonances, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 076006, arXiv:1907.08980 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. D. Ball et al.,The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III, J. Phys. G49 (2022) 080501, arXiv:2203.05506 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bailey, T

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin and R. S. Thorne, Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 341, arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hou et al., New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC, Phys

    T.-J. Hou et al., New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 014013, arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R. D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 663, arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Re, Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur

    E. Re, Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1547, arXiv:1009.2450 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Kidonakis and N

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

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

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

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Höche, S

    S. Höche, S. Mrenna, S. Payne, C. T. Preuss and P. Skands, A Study of QCD Radiation in VBF Higgs Production with Vincia and Pythia, SciPost Phys.12(2022) 010, arXiv:2106.10987 [hep-ph]. 42

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Studies on the improvement of the matching uncertainty definition in top-quark processes simulated withPowheg+Pythia8, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2023-029, 2013, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2872787

    2023

  56. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the top-quark mass using a leptonic invariant mass in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP06(2023) 019, arXiv: 2209.00583 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert, N. Moretti and S. Pozzorini, New NLOPS predictions for𝑡¯𝑡+𝑏-jet production at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 502, arXiv: 1802.00426 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Ježo and P

    T. Ježo and P. Nason,On the Treatment of Resonances in Next-to-Leading Order Calculations Matched to a Parton Shower, JHEP12(2015) 065, arXiv:1509.09071 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert and S. Pozzorini, Resonance-aware NLOPS matching for off-shell𝑡𝑡 + tW production with semileptonic decays, JHEP10 (2023) 008, arXiv:2307.15653 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Czakon et al.,Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW, JHEP10 (2017) 186, arXiv:1705.04105 [hep-ph]

    M. Czakon et al.,Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW, JHEP10 (2017) 186, arXiv:1705.04105 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Grazzini, S

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit and M. Wiesemann,Fully differential NNLO computations with MATRIX, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 537, arXiv:1711.06631 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Mazzitelli et al., Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Event Generation for Top-Quark Pair Production, Phys

    J. Mazzitelli et al., Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Event Generation for Top-Quark Pair Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 062001, arXiv:2012.14267 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    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]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Gleisberg and S

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

    2008 arXiv

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    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

  67. [75]

    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

  68. [76]

    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

  69. [77]

    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

  70. [78]

    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

  71. [79]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231. 43

    2001 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Höche, F

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

    2009 arXiv

  73. [81]

    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

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

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

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    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]

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

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

    2020 arXiv

  78. [86]

    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

  79. [87]

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

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Evidence for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a top quark pair with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072003, arXiv:1712.08891 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  81. [89]

    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

  82. [90]

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

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2008 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    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

  86. [94]

    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

  87. [95]

    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]. 44

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

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

    2023 arXiv

  89. [97]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS𝑏-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with𝑡¯𝑡 events in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 970, arXiv: 1907.05120 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [98]

    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

  91. [99]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurements of𝑡¯𝑡 differential cross sections in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using events containing two leptons, JHEP02(2019) 149, arXiv: 1811.06625 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  92. [100]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of𝑡¯𝑡 production in association with additional𝑏-jets in the 𝑒𝜇 final state in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP01 (2025) 068, arXiv:2407.13473 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez,The Catchment Area of Jets, JHEP04(2008) 005, arXiv: 0802.1188 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  94. [102]

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

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

    1995

  95. [103]

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

    2011 arXiv

  96. [104]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the𝑐-jet mistagging efficiency in𝑡¯𝑡 events using𝑝𝑝 collision data at√𝑠= 13TeV collected with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 95, arXiv: 2109.10627 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  97. [105]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Calibration of the light-flavour jet mistagging efficiency of the𝑏-tagging algorithms with𝑍+jets events using139fb−1 of ATLAS proton–proton collision data at√𝑠= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) 728, arXiv:2301.06319 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  98. [106]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling with Sherpa and MG5_aMC@NLO, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-007, 2017,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261938

    2017

  99. [107]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the top quark mass in the𝑡¯𝑡→lepton+jets channel from√𝑠= 8TeV ATLAS data and combination with previous results, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 290, arXiv: 1810.01772 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  100. [108]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the top quark mass using proton–proton data at√𝑠= 7 and 8TeV, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 072004, arXiv:1509.04044 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [109]

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

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

    2016 arXiv

  102. [110]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS simulation of boson plus jets processes in Run 2, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-006, 2017,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2261937. 45

    2017

  103. [111]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of𝑊±𝑍 production cross sections and gauge boson polarisation in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) 535, arXiv:1902.05759 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  104. [112]

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

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

    2017 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Maguire, L

    E. Maguire, L. Heinrich and G. Watt,HEPData: a repository for high energy physics data, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.898 (2017) 102006, ed. by R. Mount and C. Tull, arXiv: 1704.05473 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2922210. 46 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 104, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 123, S. Abdelhameed 119a, K. Abeling 55, N.J. Abicht 49, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 45, A...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.