Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Search for a Higgs boson produced in association with a charm quark and decaying to a W boson pair in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A search of 138 fb^-1 of LHC proton-proton collisions finds no evidence for Higgs boson production in association with a charm quark (cH) in the H→WW→eνμν final state, and sets the first cH limit in this decay channel.

desk verdict First cH search in H->WW->e nu mu nu; competently done null result, but sensitivity is weak and the irreducible H+c-bkg modeling is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14988 v1 pith:L25SATSE submitted 2025-08-20 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords HiggsbosoncharmquarkYukawacouplingkappa_cassociatedproductionHtoWWCMSLHC
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

Using the full 13 TeV Run 2 dataset (138 fb^-1), this search looks for a Higgs boson produced alongside a charm quark and decaying to an electron-muon neutrino pair. No such signal is observed: the measured cH yield is compatible with the background-only expectation within 1.5 standard deviations, and the 95% CL upper limit on the cH signal strength is 1065 (expected 506) times the standard model prediction in the main fit. Combined with the previous CMS cH search in the diphoton channel, the analysis constrains the Higgs-charm Yukawa coupling modifier to |κc| < 47 (expected 51) at 95% CL. This is the first cH search in the WW→eνμν final state and provides a production-based probe of the charm Yukawa coupling that is complementary to direct H→cc decay searches.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by two boosted-decision-tree classifiers plus charm-jet tagging. Dbkg separates cH from the ~90% top-quark background; DH-bkg separates cH from the irreducible H+c-bkg background, which has the same final state but no direct charm-Yukawa vertex. The distinction between fixing versus floating the H+c-bkg normalization (the 1POI versus 2POI fits) sets the main limit, and the flat-direction assumption converts the cross-section limit into a bound on |κc|.

What would settle it

Run the identical selection on the full Run 3 dataset (about 450 fb^-1 total): under this paper's background model the expected limit should improve from 506 by roughly sqrt(138/450), and no excess beyond 3 sigma should appear in the high-DH-bkg bins of the Nc-j=1 signal region. An excess there, or a sharply different observed limit, would indicate the H+c-bkg template is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a 95% confidence-level upper limit on the cH production signal strength of 1065 (506 expected) times the standard model value when the normalization of the irreducible H+c-bkg background is fixed (1POI fit). When that background is floated (2POI fit), the limit loosens to 1804 (1097) because the two parameters are 87% anti-correlated. Combining the fixed-background fit with the previous CMS diphoton cH search yields |κc| < 47 (51 expected) at 95% CL, the tightest production-based constraint on the charm Yukawa coupling. The analysis separates the cH signal from the dominant top-quark background using one boosted decision tree (Dbkg) and from the kinematically similar H+

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the irreducible H+c-bkg background—a Higgs boson produced with a charm jet but without a direct charm-Yukawa vertex—is modeled well enough that the DH-bkg classifier separates it from the cH signal, with its normalization known to within the assigned 50% uncertainty when it is not floated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cH process in the WW→eνμν channel is not observed in 138 fb^-1; the expected standard-model rate is more than 500 times below the current sensitivity.
  • Combined with the diphoton search, the production-based bound |κc| < 47 is the strongest from cH production, though it remains far above the direct H→cc decay bound of |κc| < 5.5.
  • In the 2POI fit, H+c-bkg and cH are 87% anti-correlated, so letting the H+c-bkg normalization float degrades the limit by about 70%; separating the two processes is the constraining factor.
  • The analysis is limited by statistical uncertainties today, but theoretical uncertainties from flavor-scheme choice and heavy-flavor modeling will dominate at the high-luminosity LHC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A data-driven handle on H+c-bkg could come from bH events, which share the same heavy-flavor associated-production physics; calibrating DH-bkg on a bH-enriched region might reduce the 50% modeling uncertainty and sharpen the 2POI fit.
  • The strong cH–bH correlation (observed at -89%) suggests that a joint cH+bH fit with a common heavy-flavor nuisance parameter could improve the cH limit.
  • At the HL-LHC, the expected 506 limit at 95% CL should improve roughly as the square root of luminosity; reaching standard-model sensitivity will require both more data and a factor-of-~20 reduction in the flavor-scheme and H+c-bkg uncertainties.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for Higgs boson production in association with a charm quark (cH) in the H->WW->e nu mu nu final state using 138 fb^-1 of CMS Run 2 data. Events are selected with an e-mu pair, missing transverse momentum, and at least one charm-tagged jet, split into Nc-j=1 and Nc-j>1 signal regions plus high-m_ll and top control regions. Two BDT classifiers (Dbkg and DH-bkg) are combined with k-means binning, and a binned likelihood fit extracts the cH signal strength mu_cH. In the 1POI scenario, where the irreducible H+c-bkg background is constrained to the SM prediction with a 50% uncertainty, the observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit is mu_cH < 1065 (506). In the 2POI scenario, where H+c-bkg is floated, the limit is 1804 (1097) and is -87% anti-correlated with cH. Combined with the preceding diphoton cH search, the result is |kappa_c| < 47 (51) at 95% CL under the flat-direction assumption.

Significance. The analysis is competently executed and follows standard CMS practice: data-driven tt normalization, two control regions, a detailed systematic inventory (Table 3), and an explicit 2POI cross-check. The limit-setting is not circular: the signal predictions are defined by externally fixed SM cross sections, and the kappa_c interpretation uses a stated published assumption. The main contribution is the first cH search in the H->WW channel; its expected sensitivity improves the combined kappa_c constraint from the diphoton-only expected 72.5 to 51, although the observed combined limit (47) is not better than the diphoton-only observed limit (38.1). The key weakness is the modeling of the irreducible H+c-bkg background, which is load-bearing for the 1POI result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 5-7] The 1POI limit depends on separating cH from the irreducible H+c-bkg background (Fig. 2). The DH-bkg AUC is only 73-78%, and the H+c-bkg template is taken from simulation with no dedicated validation; the 50% normalization uncertainty is borrowed from ggH+bb [43] and no shape uncertainty is assigned to this component. The 2POI fit demonstrates the degeneracy: H+c-bkg is -87% anti-correlated with cH, and the observed limit degrades from 1065 to 1804. Please add a robustness test using an alternative H+c-bkg template, a shape uncertainty, or a control region enriched in H+c-bkg, or promote the 2POI result to the primary result.
  2. [Sections 3 and 7] The bH contribution, which is about eight times larger than cH (sigma = 660 vs 90 fb) and enters through the 27% b-jet mistag rate, is reported to be -89% correlated with cH. bH carries the same borrowed 50% normalization uncertainty and no dedicated control region. A conservative check with a larger bH uncertainty or an alternative bH template should be shown to establish that the cH limit is not driven by bH modeling assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Reference [23]] The HEPData DOI is given as 10.17182/hepdata.123456, which appears to be a placeholder. Please update to the actual record.
  2. [Table 1] The first row is garbled ('Nc-j =1 =1'). It should read '=1' for the Nc-j=1 SR column and '>1' for the Nc-j>1 SR column.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'the invariant mass (the pT) of the dilepton pair must be greater than 12 (30) GeV' should be separated into two explicit requirements, e.g., m_ll > 12 GeV and pT_ll > 30 GeV.
  4. [Section 7 / Abstract] Please state explicitly that the observed combined limit |kappa_c| < 47 is not an improvement over the diphoton-only observed limit |kappa_c| < 38.1 [21]; the gain from adding the H->WW channel appears only in the expected limit (72.5 to 51).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: limits are set against external SM predictions; the only self-citation is the previous CMS diphoton result, used for combination and as method reference, not as a load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central result, the observed (expected) upper limit on the cH signal strength of 1065 (506) times the SM value, is obtained from a binned maximum likelihood fit of data to simulation templates. The predicted signal is defined externally: the cH cross section of 90 fb comes from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO with NNPDF3.1 PDFs, and the H boson production and decay uncertainties are taken from the LHC Higgs cross section handbook. No fitted parameter enters the definition of the SM prediction being tested; the fit only determines the signal strength modifier relative to that prediction. The translation to |kappa_c| uses the flat direction assumption from external theory papers [20,92], which is explicitly stated as an assumption rather than disguised as a derivation. The only self-citation is the previous CMS cH search in the diphoton channel [21], used for the combination and as a methodological precedent; this is an independent measurement, not an input that forces the H->WW result. The irreducible H+c-bkg background modeling, while a legitimate systematic concern (fixed to simulation with a borrowed 50% uncertainty in the 1POI fit and floated with -87% anti-correlation in the 2POI fit), is a modeling uncertainty and not a circular step: the 2POI fit explicitly cross-checks the sensitivity to this background, and the quoted 1POI limit is the stated result with that systematic included. No equation or claimed prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard-model assumptions from the prior literature: the PDF set, external cross sections and branching fractions, the flavor-scheme treatment of heavy quarks, and the flat direction assumption used to translate a cross-section limit into a coupling modifier. No ad hoc assumptions are introduced by this paper beyond the standard choice to fix (1POI) or float (2POI) the irreducible Higgs-plus-charm background. The only fitted quantities are the signal strength itself, the tt normalization from control regions, and the floated Higgs-plus-charm normalization in the 2POI scenario. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • mu_cH (cH signal strength, 1POI) = 390 +380/-270 (best fit); 95% CL upper limit 1065 observed, 506 expected
    Parameter of interest of the binned maximum likelihood fit; it is the measured yield ratio to the SM prediction, not an ad hoc input. The upper limit on it is the central result.
  • tt normalization factor = not quoted in the paper
    Unconstrained per data-taking period and c jet multiplicity category, determined from the high-mll and top control regions; standard data-driven background normalization.
  • mu_H+c-bkg (2POI scenario only) = not quoted; -87% correlation with mu_cH
    Normalization of the irreducible Higgs-plus-charm background floated in the alternative 2POI fit; fixed to simulation with a 50% uncertainty in the 1POI scenario.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SM kappa framework with the flat direction assumption: deviations in Higgs couplings are parameterized by kappa_c while other couplings scale to keep other Higgs rates at unity
    Used to translate the mu_cH limit into |kappa_c| < 47; Section 7, Refs. [20, 92]. Assumes the SM structure of the cH amplitude with a modified charm Yukawa vertex.
  • domain assumption Massless charm and bottom quarks in the matrix elements (4FS for cH, 5FS for bH)
    Section 3; the flavor scheme difference is the dominant theoretical uncertainty (up to 30%) and is treated as a shape uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Modeling of the irreducible H+c-bkg background and its binned templates
    Sections 5-6; fixed from simulation with a 50% normalization uncertainty based on the ggH+bb calculation [43], or floated in the 2POI scenario. The separation from cH signal rests on the DH-bkg BDT and ghost-matched flavor classification.
  • domain assumption External SM predictions: NNPDF3.1 PDFs, generator cross sections, and Higgs branching fractions from the LHC Higgs cross section handbook [85]
    Sections 3 and 6; the expected limit and the kappa_c translation are relative to these external inputs.
  • domain assumption Background template shapes from simulation for non-tt backgrounds (V+jets, diboson, single top, H-bkg)
    Section 5; normalizations come from simulation except for tt, with theory and MC-statistical uncertainties assigned.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for a Higgs boson produced in association with a charm quark and decaying to a W boson pair in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L25SATSE

@misc{pith2026250814988,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for a Higgs boson produced in association with a charm quark and decaying to a W boson pair in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L25SATSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14988}
}
abstract

This paper presents a search for a Higgs boson produced in association with a charm quark (cH) which allows to probe the Higgs-charm Yukawa coupling strength modifier $\kappa_\mathrm{c}$. Higgs boson decays to a pair of W bosons are considered, where one W boson decays to an electron and a neutrino, and the other \PW boson decays to a muon and a neutrino. The data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$, were collected between 2016 and 2018 with the CMS detector at the LHC at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV. Upper limits at the 95\% confidence level (CL) are set on the ratio of the measured yield to the standard model expectation for cH production. The observed (expected) upper limit is 1065 (506). When combined with the previous search for cH in the diphoton decay channel of the Higgs boson, the limits are interpreted as observed (expected) constraints at 95% CL on the value of $\kappa_\mathrm{c}$, $\lvert\kappa_\mathrm{c}\rvert$ $\lt$ 47 (51).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14988 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Leading-order Feynman diagrams that contribute to the pp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram illustrating H boson production in association with a charm quark in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The area-normalized distributions of the two BDT classifiers: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of Dbkg (left) and DH-bkg (right) for different H boson production pro￾cesses. The event counts correspond to the expected yields for 138 fb−1 . The splitting of H-bkg into three components is based on the flavor of the additional jet associated with the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed and expected distributions of one-parameter-of-interest scenario after per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Upper limits of µcH at 95% CL for each data-taking period, and the combination of the periods. The light blue (red) bars show the 1 (2) standard deviation expected result of the 1POI fit with fixing the H+c-bkg contribution to the SM prediction. The green (yellow) bars…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two-dimensional likelihood contour of µcH and µH+c-bkg. The color scale represents twice the negative log likelihood difference with respect to the best fit point. The observed 95% CL (dashed) and 68% CL (solid) contours are shown in black lines, and the best fit point…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Upper limits of µcH at 95% CL of the combined analysis with the previous result in the diphoton channel [21] using the 1POI fit. The light blue (red) bars show the 1 (2) standard deviation range of the expected results. The blue circles represent the median of the expe…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Unveiling Light-Quark Yukawa Flavor Structure via Dihadron Fragmentation at Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dihadron fragmentation azimuthal asymmetry at e+e− colliders can probe light-quark Yukawa couplings linearly and separate y_u from y_d at the 10^-4 level.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [43]

    Taming a leading theoretical uncertainty in HH measurements via accurate simulations for bbH production

    S. Manzoni et al., “Taming a leading theoretical uncertainty in HH measurements via accurate simulations for bbH production”, JHEP 09 (2023) 179, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)179, arXiv:2307.09992

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    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. B 716 (2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021, arXiv:1207.7235

    arXiv 2012

  3. [2]

    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. B 716 (2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020, arXiv:1207.7214

    arXiv 2012

  4. [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”, JHEP 06 (2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081, arXiv:1303.4571

    arXiv 2013

  5. [4]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery

    CMS Collaboration, “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery”, Nature 607 (2022) 60, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x , arXiv:2207.00043. [Erratum: Nature 623 (2023)]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery

    ATLAS Collaboration, “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery”, Nature 607 (2022) 52, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w , arXiv:2207.00092. [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of simplified template cross sections of the Higgs boson produced in association with W or Z bosons in the H → bb decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 092011, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.092011, arXiv:2312.07562

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Measurements of WH and ZH production in the H → bb decay channel in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of WH and ZH production in the H → bb decay channel in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 178, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08677-2 , arXiv:2007.02873. References 17

    arXiv 2021

Show all 92 references
  1. [8]

    Measurements of WH and ZH production with Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and direct constraints on the charm Yukawa coupling in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of WH and ZH production with Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and direct constraints on the charm Yukawa coupling in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 04 (2025) 075, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2025)075, arXiv:2410.19611

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Measurements of Higgs boson production cross-sections in the H → τ+τ− decay channel in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson production cross-sections in the H → τ+τ− decay channel in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 08 (2022) 175, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)175, arXiv:2201.08269

    2022 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Measurements of Higgs boson production in the decay channel with a pair of τ leptons in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of Higgs boson production in the decay channel with a pair of τ leptons in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 562, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11452-8 , arXiv:2204.12957

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for Higgs boson decay to a pair of muons”, JHEP 01 (2021) 148, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)148, arXiv:2009.04363

    2021 arXiv

  5. [12]

    A search for the dimuon decay of the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “A search for the dimuon decay of the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Lett. B 812 (2021) 135980, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135980, arXiv:2007.07830

    2021

  6. [13]

    Search for Higgs boson and observation of Z boson through their decay into a charm quark-antiquark pair in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson and observation of Z boson through their decay into a charm quark-antiquark pair in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.041801, arXiv:2211.14181

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Direct constraint on the Higgs-charm coupling from a search for Higgs boson decays into charm quarks with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Direct constraint on the Higgs-charm coupling from a search for Higgs boson decays into charm quarks with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 717, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10588-3 , arXiv:2201.11428

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Search for Higgs boson decay to a charm quark-antiquark pair in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson decay to a charm quark-antiquark pair in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 061801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.061801, arXiv:2205.05550

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Jet flavour classification using DeepJet

    E. Bols et al., “Jet flavour classification using DeepJet”, JINST 15 (2020) P12012, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012, arXiv:2008.10519

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at √s = 13 TeV”, JINST 17 (2022) P03014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/03/P03014, arXiv:2111.03027

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Combination and interpretation of differential Higgs boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Combination and interpretation of differential Higgs boson production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, 2025. arXiv:2504.13081. Submitted to JHEP, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.13081

    2025 doi arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bounding the charm Yukawa coupling

    N. M. Coyle, C. E. M. Wagner, and V . Wei, “Bounding the charm Yukawa coupling”, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 073013, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.073013, arXiv:1905.09360

    2019 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Probing the charm quark Yukawa coupling in Higgs+Charm production

    I. Brivio, F. Goertz, and G. Isidori, “Probing the charm quark Yukawa coupling in Higgs+Charm production”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 211801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.211801, arXiv:1507.02916

    2015 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Search for the associated production of a Higgs boson with a charm quark in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for the associated production of a Higgs boson with a charm quark in the diphoton decay channel in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, 2025. arXiv:2503.08797. Submitted to JHEP, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.08797. 18

    2025 doi

  15. [22]

    Search for the associated production of charm quarks and a Higgs boson decaying into a photon pair with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the associated production of charm quarks and a Higgs boson decaying into a photon pair with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP 02 (2025) 045, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)045, arXiv:2407.15550

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    doi:10.17182/hepdata.123456

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025. doi:10.17182/hepdata.123456

    2025 doi

  17. [24]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

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

    2008 doi

  18. [25]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

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

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    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”, JINST 15 (2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    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. C 81 (2021) 800, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2 , arXiv:2104.01927

    2015 arXiv

  23. [30]

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

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

    2017

  24. [31]

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

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

    2018

  25. [32]

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

    J. Alwall et al., “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”, JHEP 07 (2014) 079, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079, arXiv:1405.0301

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations

    R. Frederix et al., “The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations”, JHEP 07 (2018) 185, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)085, arXiv:1804.10017. [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)085]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Higgs production in association with bottom quarks

    M. Wiesemann et al., “Higgs production in association with bottom quarks”, JHEP 02 (2015) 132, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)132, arXiv:1409.5301

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Merging meets matching in MC@NLO

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

    2012 arXiv

  29. [36]

    A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms

    P . Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”, JHEP 11 (2004) 040, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    2004 arXiv

  30. [37]

    NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG

    P . Nason and C. Oleari, “NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG”, JHEP 02 (2010) 037, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)037, arXiv:0911.5299. References 19

    2010 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”, JHEP 11 (2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070, arXiv:0709.2092

    2007 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”, JHEP 06 (2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043, arXiv:1002.2581

    2010 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM

    E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P . Slavich, and A. Vicini, “Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM”, JHEP 02 (2012) 088, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)088, arXiv:1111.2854

    2012 arXiv

  34. [41]

    HW±/HZ+ 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO

    G. Luisoni, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano, “HW±/HZ+ 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO”, JHEP 10 (2013) 083, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)083, arXiv:1306.2542

    2013 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX

    H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, “Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX”, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 094003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094003, arXiv:1501.04498

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Event generation with Sherpa 2.2

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

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

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

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    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. C 80 (2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4 , arXiv:1903.12179

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G EANT 4—a simulation toolkit

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

    2003 doi

  41. [49]

    Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid

    CMS Collaboration, “Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid”, CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

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

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

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    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”, JINST 16 (2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, arXiv:2012.06888

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots

    CMS Collaboration, “ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020. 20

    2016

  45. [53]

    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”, JINST 13 (2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

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

    2008 arXiv

  47. [55]

    FastJet user manual

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

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”, JINST 15 (2020) P09018, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018, arXiv:2003.00503

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”, JINST 12 (2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014, arXiv:1607.03663

    2017 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9/fb of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9/fb of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2018-058, 2018

    2018

  51. [59]

    Performance summary of AK4 jet charm tagging with the CMS Run2 legacy dataset

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance summary of AK4 jet charm tagging with the CMS Run2 legacy dataset”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2023-006, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV using the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV using the CMS detector”, JINST 14 (2019) P07004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004, arXiv:1903.06078

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system”, in Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , KDD ’16, p. 785. ACM, 2016. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  54. [62]

    Pileup subtraction using jet areas

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

    2008 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Web-scale k-means clustering

    D. Sculley, “Web-scale k-means clustering”, in Proc. 19th Int. Conf. on World Wide Web , WWW ’10, p. 1177. Association for Computing Machinery, 2010. doi:10.1145/1772690.1772862

    2010

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    The ROOFIT toolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, “The ROOFIT toolkit for data modeling”, in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2003): La Jolla CA, United States, March 24–28. 2003. arXiv:physics/0306116

    2003 arXiv

  58. [66]

    The RooStats project

    L. Moneta et al., “The RooStats project”, PoS ACAT2010 (2010) 057, doi:10.22323/1.093.0057, arXiv:1009.1003

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots

    W. S. Cleveland, “Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots”, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 (1979) 829, doi:10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038

    1979

  60. [68]

    Locally weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting

    W. S. Cleveland and S. J. Devlin, “Locally weighted regression: An approach to regression analysis by local fitting”, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 83 (1988) 596, doi:10.1080/01621459.1988.10478639. References 21

    1988

  61. [69]

    Single-top-quark production in the t-channel at NNLO

    J. Campbell, T. Neumann, and Z. Sullivan, “Single-top-quark production in the t-channel at NNLO”, JHEP 02 (2021) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)040, arXiv:2012.01574

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III

    PDF4LHC Working Group Collaboration, “The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III”, J. Phys. G 49 (2022) 080501, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ac7216, arXiv:2203.05506

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Higher-order corrections for tW production at high-energy hadron colliders

    N. Kidonakis and N. Yamanaka, “Higher-order corrections for tW production at high-energy hadron colliders”, JHEP 05 (2021) 278, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)278, arXiv:2102.11300

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through o(α2 s )

    K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, “Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through o(α2 s )”, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 114017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114017, arXiv:hep-ph/0609070

    2006 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Vector boson production at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO

    S. Catani et al., “Vector boson production at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 082001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.082001, arXiv:0903.2120

    2009 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Inclusive production cross sections at N3LO

    J. Baglio, C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger, and R. Szafron, “Inclusive production cross sections at N3LO”, JHEP 12 (2022) 066, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)066, arXiv:2209.06138

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    High precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at NNLO

    C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, “High precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at NNLO”, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 094008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094008, arXiv:hep-ph/0312266

    2004 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Mixed QCD-electroweak O(αsα) corrections to Drell-Yan processes in the resonance region: pole approximation and non-factorizable corrections

    S. Dittmaier, A. Huss, and C. Schwinn, “Mixed QCD-electroweak O(αsα) corrections to Drell-Yan processes in the resonance region: pole approximation and non-factorizable corrections”, Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 318, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.05.027, arXiv:1403.3216

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC

    J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC”, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 205-206 (2010) 10, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011, arXiv:1007.3492

    2010 arXiv

  70. [78]

    QCD corrections to W+W− production through gluon fusion

    Caola, Fabrizio and Melnikov, Kirill and R ¨ontsch, Raoul and Tancredi, Lorenzo, “QCD corrections to W+W− production through gluon fusion”, Phys. Lett. B 754 (2016) 275, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.046, arXiv:1511.08617

    2016 arXiv

  71. [79]

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

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

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Vector boson pair production at the LHC

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, “Vector boson pair production at the LHC”, JHEP 07 (2011) 018, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)018, arXiv:1105.0020

    2011 arXiv

  73. [81]

    ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD

    F. Cascioli et al., “ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD”, Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014) 311, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.056, arXiv:1405.2219

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    ZZ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD

    M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev, “ZZ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD”, Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 407, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.055, arXiv:1507.06257. 22

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    ZZ production at the LHC: NNLO predictions for 2 ℓ2ν and 4ℓ signatures

    S. Kallweit and M. Wiesemann, “ZZ production at the LHC: NNLO predictions for 2 ℓ2ν and 4ℓ signatures”, Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 382, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.016, arXiv:1806.05941

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Precise predictions for V +jets dark matter backgrounds

    J. M. Lindert et al., “Precise predictions for V +jets dark matter backgrounds”, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 829, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5389-1 , arXiv:1705.04664

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

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

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, 2016. arXiv:1610.07922. doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002

    2016 arXiv

  78. [86]

    NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production

    N. Kidonakis, “NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production”, Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714, doi:10.1134/S1063779614040091, arXiv:1210.7813

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO

    S. Catani et al., “Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO”, JHEP 07 (2019) 100, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)100, arXiv:1906.06535

    2019 arXiv

  80. [88]

    High-precision differential predictions for top-quark pairs at the LHC

    M. Czakon, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov, “High-precision differential predictions for top-quark pairs at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 082003, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.082003, arXiv:1511.00549

    2016 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW

    M. Czakon et al., “Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW”, JHEP 10 (2017) 186, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)186, arXiv:1705.04105

    2017 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra

    J. S. Conway, “Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra”, in PHYSTAT 2011, p. 115. 2011. arXiv:1103.0354. doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-006.115

    2011 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2018) 161, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613

    2018 arXiv

  84. [92]

    More light on Higgs flavor at the LHC: Higgs boson couplings to light quarks through h+γ production

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. M. Cano, and J. M. No, “More light on Higgs flavor at the LHC: Higgs boson couplings to light quarks through h+γ production”, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 095023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.095023, arXiv:2008.12538. 23 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physic...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.