Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

The paper reports a measurement of the Higgs boson total decay width of Γ_H = 3.9 +2.7 −2.2 MeV, from the ratio of off-shell to on-shell H→WW→eνμν production, consistent with the standard model prediction of 4.1 MeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 11:43 UTC pith:FFWYP7SW

load-bearing objection Solid, incremental CMS measurement of Γ_H in the WW channel; the main caveat is a single K-factor borrowed from the ZZ analysis applied to the WW signal-plus-interference template. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.05168 v2 pith:FFWYP7SW submitted 2026-01-08 hep-ex

Measurement of the Higgs boson total decay width using the H to WW to eνμν decay channel in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords Higgs bosontotal decay widthoff-shell productionH→WWCMSLHCsignal strengthinterference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The Higgs boson is so narrow that its 4 MeV width cannot be seen directly; the detector smears any resonance far more. The paper establishes a value by comparing events where the Higgs is produced with high virtual mass (off-shell, above 160 GeV in WW invariant mass) to ordinary on-shell production, because the ratio of their rates is proportional to the width. Using 138 fb−1 of CMS proton-proton data at 13 TeV, the measured width is 3.9 +2.7 −2.2 MeV, matching the standard model and excluding the absence of off-shell production at 3.4 standard deviations. This improves the previous CMS result in the same decay channel by a factor of three and offers a window on new physics: any deviation would signal anomalous Higgs couplings.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Higgs total decay width is Γ_H = 3.9 +2.7 −2.2 MeV at 68% confidence, derived from an off-shell signal strength μ_off-shell = 1.2 +0.8 −0.7 using the ratio r = μ_off-shell / μ_on-shell. Because on-shell production scales as couplings squared divided by the width while off-shell production scales as couplings squared alone, the ratio directly measures the width in units of the standard-model prediction. The analysis defines off-shell events by generator-level m_WW > 160 GeV, includes the destructive interference with the nonresonant WW continuum as part of the signal, and extracts the result from a profile likelihood fit over twelve signal and control regions def

What carries the argument

The central identity is Γ_H ∝ μ_off-shell / μ_on-shell, obtained by combining the narrow-width approximation for on-shell production with the near-independence of the off-shell cross section from the width. The workhorse is a set of signal-plus-background-plus-interference (S+B+I) templates: gluon-gluon fusion off-shell production is generated at leading order with MCFM and normalized to NNLO and N3LO via K-factors, while VBF uses POWHEG+JHUGEN with the complex pole scheme. A deep neural network, trained per jet multiplicity (0, 1, ≥2 jets), separates off-shell ggF, off-shell VBF, on-shell processes, top-quark background, and nonresonant WW, and the maximum-likelihood fit to the DNN output d

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that the shape and normalization of the off-shell signal together with its destructive interference with the nonresonant WW continuum are modeled accurately; if the interference is miscalculated by more than the assigned theoretical uncertainty, the extracted width shifts outside the quoted interval.

What would settle it

A future measurement with roughly twice the data could look directly at the WW invariant mass distribution above 160 GeV: if the destructive interference dip predicted by the S+B+I template does not appear, or if the off-shell signal strength moves below about 0.5 while the on-shell strength stays near 1, the central width would drop below 2 MeV and contradict the standard model, pointing to a failure of the interference modeling.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the result pins the Higgs width to roughly 2–7 MeV at 68% confidence, confirming the standard-model expectation of 4.1 MeV within uncertainties.
  • The 3.4σ exclusion of zero off-shell production provides direct evidence that the Higgs boson contributes beyond its mass shell, as the standard model requires through unitarity-preserving interference.
  • The measurement sharpens the indirect bound on nonstandard Higgs couplings, since any beyond-SM contribution that alters the total width would show up as a shift in Γ_H away from the SM value.
  • Combined with the existing H→ZZ width measurement, the two independent channels offer a cross-check of the width that is free of common WW-specific systematic effects.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A future combined fit of the WW and ZZ off-shell channels could test whether the extracted width is truly process-independent; if the two values disagreed, that would signal a violation of the standard-model coupling structure rather than just a broader Higgs.
  • The current uncertainty is statistically dominated, so the same technique with the higher luminosity of the HL-LHC could push the width constraint below 1 MeV, approaching the precision of the theoretical prediction and sharpening the search for new physics.
  • The observed deficit in high-DNN-score bins, interpreted by the paper as favoring stronger destructive interference, could be an early hint of new physics in the WW continuum or a limitation of the interference modeling; a dedicated high-mass m_WW shape analysis in future data would discriminate between these possibilities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a measurement of the Higgs boson total decay width using the ratio of off-shell to on-shell H→WW→eνμν production in 138 fb⁻¹ of 13 TeV CMS data. The off-shell signal strength is measured to be μ_off-shell = 1.2 +0.8/−0.7 and the width is Γ_H = 3.9 +2.7/−2.2 MeV, consistent with the SM prediction of 4.1 MeV. The analysis uses a profile likelihood with positive-definite S+B+I templates, DNN-based categorization in 0-, 1-, and ≥2-jet bins, and multiple control regions. The statistical uncertainty contributes 56% of the total uncertainty; the largest systematic is theoretical (27%). The goodness-of-fit p-value is 0.073.

Significance. If correct, this constitutes the first CMS H→WW width measurement at 13 TeV, improving on the previous 7/8 TeV limit by roughly a factor of three and complementing the CMS H→ZZ result. The analysis is careful and transparent, with data-driven background estimates, a well-established statistical framework (Combine), and a clear statement of the off-shell signal-plus-interference definition. The derived Γ_H is a parameter-free ratio of two measured signal strengths and is not circular. The principal risk to the result is the modeling of the off-shell ggF S+B+I template, as detailed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3] The off-shell ggF S+B+I sample is normalized to NNLO via a K-factor from Ref. [51], the CMS ZZ off-shell measurement, and then at N3LO using the ggF Higgs K-factors. The text states the K-factor is 'differential in m_WW', but Ref. [51] is a ZZ analysis. More importantly, the MCFM sample contains the ggF signal, the gg→WW continuum, and their interference, and applying a single K-factor to all three implicitly assumes identical higher-order QCD corrections. The loop structures of gg→ZW and gg→WW differ, and the interference term enters the yield equation (Section 7) through sqrt(μ_off-shell). A relative miscalibration of the continuum or interference would directly bias μ_off-shell and hence Γ_H, and could shift the result beyond the quoted 27% theoretical uncertainty. Please provide a dedicated validation, e.g., separate normalization of gg→WW continuum and interference using available N
  2. [Section 8] The observed 68% CL interval for Γ_H, [1.72, 6.61] MeV, is substantially narrower than the expected interval, [0.25, 15.25] MeV, and the observed exclusion of no off-shell production (3.4σ) is much stronger than expected (1.3σ). The paper attributes this to data favoring more destructive interference in the high-DNN bins. Given the off-shell contribution is only a few percent of the total yield and the measurement is shape-based, it would strengthen the paper to provide a closure test in which the off-shell template is fixed to zero or to the SM, and to show that the high-DNN bins are not absorbing a background mismodeling. This would help demonstrate that the stronger-than-expected signal is physical rather than an artifact of the interference template.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] Typo: 'VBH off-shell' should be 'VBF off-shell'.
  2. [Section 3] The phrase 'next-to-NLO (NNLO)' is confusing. It should read 'next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO)'. Similarly, 'next-to-NNLO (N3LO)' should be 'next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO)'.
  3. [References] Reference [15] contains an apparent typo in the DOI: '10.1016/j.physletb.2025.1398988' has an extra '8'.
  4. [Section 4] Minor grammar: 'we used a multiclass fully connected deep neural network' should be 'we use...' for consistency with the rest of the description.
  5. [Section 7] The yield equation is not numbered, which makes cross-referencing in the text awkward. Consider numbering it (e.g., Eq. 7).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Central Γ_H extraction is a parameter-free ratio of two fitted signal strengths; the only self-citation is a K-factor normalization that does not inject the target width.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The paper derives Γ_H = (μ_off-shell/μ_on-shell) Γ_SM from the narrow-width approximation and the off-shell cross section's independence of Γ_H (Eqs. 1–4). Neither μ_off-shell nor μ_on-shell is defined in terms of Γ_H; both are fitted from data, and r = Γ_H/Γ_SM is the parameter of interest in the likelihood (Eq. 6). The off-shell template is generated from SM assumptions and scaled algebraically in μ_off-shell in the yield equation of Section 7; the width is not an input to the templates. The only self-citation entering the chain is the K-factor from the CMS ZZ off-shell paper [51] used to normalize the MCFM LO ggF S+B+I sample to NNLO. This is a higher-order QCD normalization imported from a measurement paper of the same collaboration, but it is not the target width and it is combined with external N3LO references [12,52]; using it is an approximation and a systematic concern, not a circular reduction. The result is also checked against expected limits and the SM prediction, so the measurement is self-contained against external benchmarks. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement uses only Standard Model processes and established analysis machinery. The free parameters are fitted signal strengths and background normalizations, which are the normal output of a HEP measurement rather than ad hoc fudge factors. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main load-bearing assumptions are the off-shell/on-shell factorization and the theoretical modeling of the off-shell WW interference.

free parameters (5)
  • μ_off-shell = 1.21 (1.2 +0.8/-0.7)
    Parameter of interest extracted from the profile likelihood fit; the central width result is proportional to this fitted signal strength.
  • μ_on-shell = 1.25 (68% CL: 1.09-1.44)
    Fitted on-shell signal strength used in the denominator of r = μ_off-shell/μ_on-shell; directly affects Γ_H.
  • qq→WW pT correction polynomial = second-order polynomial coefficients, not quoted
    Data-driven correction to the qq→WW pT shape, derived by fitting the data/MC ratio after subtracting other backgrounds. Affects the WW background shape in the off-shell region.
  • Nonresonant WW normalization = constrained in fit
    Overall normalization of the nonresonant WW background is constrained simultaneously in signal and control regions; a large background, so its normalization affects the small off-shell signal extraction.
  • t-tbar normalization = constrained in fit
    Top quark background normalization is constrained in dedicated control regions; top events are a major background in the eνμν final state.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Narrow-width approximation for on-shell Higgs production: σ_on-shell ≈ g_p^2 g_d^2 / (M_H Γ_H), Eq. (1)
    This is the basis for relating the on-shell rate to the inverse width. It is a standard physics approximation valid when Γ_H << M_H.
  • domain assumption Off-shell Higgs production cross section is independent of Γ_H and M_H for m_WW > 160 GeV, Eq. (2)
    The ratio method requires that only the on-shell rate carries the Γ_H dependence. This is stated in the paper and is standard for off-shell measurements.
  • domain assumption MCFM LO generation of ggF signal+background+interference, normalized by K-factors to NNLO/N3LO, correctly models the off-shell tail shape
    The off-shell signal is only a few percent of the yield, so the extracted width depends critically on this modeling. The paper assigns theoretical systematic uncertainties to cover this.
  • domain assumption No anomalous Higgs couplings modify the off-shell/on-shell relationship
    The extraction interprets r = μ_off-shell/μ_on-shell as Γ_H/Γ_SM. If BSM couplings alter production or decay in an on-shell/off-shell dependent way, the width interpretation would be biased. The paper acknowledges this by framing deviations as possible anomalous couplings.
  • domain assumption Detector simulation, DNN templates, and data-driven corrections accurately model the data after all scale factors are applied
    The full analysis depends on the fidelity of the CMS detector simulation, particle-flow reconstruction, and the DNN discriminator trained on MC. Internal validations are described but the raw validation data are not public.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37724 in / 12068 out tokens · 132124 ms · 2026-08-03T11:43:46.694816+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Higgs boson (H) decay width is determined from the ratio of off- and on-shell production of H $\to$ WW $\to$ e$\nu\mu\nu$ using proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ collected at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV by the CMS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The off-shell signal strength is measured as $\mu_\text{off-shell}$ = 1.2 $^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$. The Higgs boson total decay width is $\Gamma_\text{H}$ = 3.9 $^{+2.7}_{-2.2}$ MeV, in agreement with the standard model prediction. The uncertainty in this result represents a factor of three improvement over the previous CMS result in this decay channel.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.05168 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagrams illustrating Higgs boson production and decays to WW in ggF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Feynman diagrams for nonresonant WW production: gg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The off-shell SR post-fit DNN output distributions for the 0-jet (upper left), 1-jet (up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The on-shell CR post-fit DNN output distributions for the 0-jet (upper left), 1-jet (up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The observed (black curve) and expected (red curve) likelihood function scans for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Off-shell Higgs boson measurements: Yukawa couplings, self-coupling, compositeness, and width

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Using off-shell Higgs production in 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV CMS data, the collaboration measured Γ_H = 5.1^{+2.0}_{-1.8} MeV, excluded no off-shell production at >5σ, and set the first direct 95% CL lower bound Λ_H > 870 ...

  2. Charged Lepton Flavor Violation at Neutrino Telescopes

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Proposes a new CLFV search in IceCube using cosmic-ray muons, deriving sensitivities for EFT operators and a Z' model, with comparisons to other experiments and projections for future telescopes.

  3. Probing axion in the DFSZ model

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    With right-handed neutrinos, DFSZ PQ charges depend only on PQ_φ; for m_A≈130 GeV, m_H±≈155 GeV and v_u∼few GeV the trilinear modifier κ_λ lies inside current experimental limits.

  4. Higgs CP studies and other Higgs properties at ATLAS and CMS

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    ATLAS and CMS present recent experimental measurements of Higgs mass, width, and CP-violating couplings in multiple decay channels using LHC collision data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A model of leptons

    S. Weinberg, “A model of leptons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.19(1967) 1264, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.19.1264 1967

  2. [2]

    Partial-symmetries of weak interactions

    S. L. Glashow, “Partial-symmetries of weak interactions”,Nucl. Phys.22(1961) 579, doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2

    doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2 1961

  3. [3]

    Weak and electromagnetic interactions

    A. Salam, “Weak and electromagnetic interactions”,Conf. Proc. C680519(1968) 367, doi:10.1142/9789812795915_0034

    doi:10.1142/9789812795915_0034 1968

  4. [4]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,Phys. Lett. B12 (1964) 132,doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9

    doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 1964

  5. [5]

    Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,Phys. Rev. 145(1966) 1156,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156

    doi:10.1103/physrev.145.1156 1966

  6. [6]

    Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.321 1964

  7. [7]

    Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.508 1964

  8. [8]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  9. [9]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    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”,Nature607(2022) 52, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05581-5,arXiv:2207.00092. [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    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”,Nature607(2022) 60,doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8, arXiv:2207.00043. [Corrigendum: Nature 623, (2023)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson mass and width using the four-lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 052014,doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.092014,arXiv:2409.13663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Measurement of off-shell Higgs boson production in the H∗ →ZZ→4ℓdecay channel using a neural simulation-based inference technique in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of off-shell Higgs boson production in the H∗ →ZZ→4ℓdecay channel using a neural simulation-based inference technique in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,Rept. Prog. Phys.88(2025) 057803, doi:10.1088/1361-6633/adcd9a,arXiv:2412.01548. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Constraining off-shell Higgs boson production and the Higgs boson total width usingWW→ℓνℓνfinal states with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Constraining off-shell Higgs boson production and the Higgs boson total width usingWW→ℓνℓνfinal states with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B 870(2025) 139898,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.1398988, arXiv:2504.07710

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Constraint on the total width of the Higgs boson from Higgs boson and four-top-quark measurements in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Constraint on the total width of the Higgs boson from Higgs boson and four-top-quark measurements in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B861(2025) 139277,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139277, arXiv:2407.10631

    arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Search for Higgs boson off-shell production in proton-proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV and derivation of constraints on its total decay width

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson off-shell production in proton-proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV and derivation of constraints on its total decay width”,JHEP09 (2016) 051,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)051,arXiv:1605.02329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal

    N. Kauer and G. Passarino, “Inadequacy of zero-width approximation for a light Higgs boson signal”,JHEP08(2012) 116,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2012)116, arXiv:1206.4803

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Photon pair production and the intermediate mass Higgs boson

    D. A. Dicus and S. S. D. Willenbrock, “Photon pair production and the intermediate mass Higgs boson”,Phys. Rev. D37(1988) 1801,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.1801

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.37.1801 1988

  20. [20]

    Bounding the Higgs boson width through interferometry

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Gluon-gluon contributions to W +W− production and Higgs interference effects

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, “Gluon-gluon contributions to W +W− production and Higgs interference effects”,JHEP10(2011) 005, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)005,arXiv:1107.5569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.165422

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.165422 2025

  23. [23]

    The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC

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

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  24. [24]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

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

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

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/p05014 2021

  29. [29]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    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”,JINST14(2019) P07004,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004,arXiv:1903.06078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-JME-18-001, 2020

    2020

  34. [34]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  35. [35]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2,arXiv:1111.6097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    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”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [37]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    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

  40. [40]

    Methods for off-shell Higgs boson production simulation used in CMS analyses

    CMS Collaboration, “Methods for off-shell Higgs boson production simulation used in CMS analyses”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-NOTE-2022-010, 2022

    2022

  41. [41]

    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”,JHEP11(2004) 040,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  42. [42]

    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”,JHEP11(2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070,arXiv:0709.2092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  43. [43]

    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”,JHEP06(2010) 043, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043,arXiv:1002.2581. References 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC

    S. Bolognesi et al., “On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 095031,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095031, arXiv:1208.4018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    The Higgs boson lineshape

    S. Goria, G. Passarino, and D. Rosco, “The Higgs boson lineshape”,Nucl. Phys. B864 (2012) 530,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.07.006,arXiv:1112.5517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques

    A. V . Gritsan, R. R¨ontsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao, “Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques”,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 055023,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.055023,arXiv:1606.03107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    New features in the JHU generator framework: constraining Higgs boson properties from on-shell and off-shell production

    A. V . Gritsan et al., “New features in the JHU generator framework: constraining Higgs boson properties from on-shell and off-shell production”,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 056022, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.056022,arXiv:2002.09888

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    An update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders

    J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “An update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders”,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 113006,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.113006, arXiv:hep-ph/9905386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  49. [49]

    Vector boson pair production at the LHC

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  50. [50]

    A multi-threaded version of MCFM

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and W. T. Giele, “A multi-threaded version of MCFM”,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 246,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3461-2, arXiv:1503.06182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Measurement of the Higgs boson width and evidence of its off-shell contributions to ZZ production

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson width and evidence of its off-shell contributions to ZZ production”,Nature Phys.18(2022) 1329, doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01682-0,arXiv:2202.06923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC

    C. Anastasiou et al., “High precision determination of the gluon fusion Higgs boson cross-section at the LHC”,JHEP05(2016) 058,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)058, arXiv:1602.00695

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production

    K. Hamilton, P . Nason, E. Re, and G. Zanderighi, “NNLOPS simulation of Higgs boson production”,JHEP10(2013) 222,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2013)222, arXiv:1309.0017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator

    K. Hamilton, P . Nason, and G. Zanderighi, “Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MiNLO Higgs generator”,JHEP05(2015) 140, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)140,arXiv:1501.04637

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  55. [55]

    Measurements of the Higgs boson production cross section and couplings in the W boson pair decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production cross section and couplings in the W boson pair decay channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 667,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11632-6, arXiv:2206.09466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    Review of top quark mass measurements in CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Review of top quark mass measurements in CMS”,Phys. Rept. 1115(2025) 116,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.002,arXiv:2403.01313. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    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”, JHEP10(2017) 186,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2017)186,arXiv:1705.04105

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    GEANT4 – a simulation toolkit

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

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  63. [63]

    Evidence for associated production of a Higgs boson with a top quark pair in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decayingτleptons at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for associated production of a Higgs boson with a top quark pair in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decayingτleptons at√s=13 TeV”,JHEP08(2018) 066,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)066, arXiv:1803.05485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011,arXiv:1712.07158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    Jet flavour classification using DeepJet

    E. Bols et al., “Jet flavour classification using DeepJet”,JINST15(2020) P12012, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012,arXiv:2008.10519

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2023-005, 2023

    2023

  67. [67]

    Deep learning with Python

    F. Chollet, “Deep learning with Python”. Manning Publications Co., second edition, 2021. ISBN 9781617296864

    2021

  68. [68]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    D. P . Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization”, 2017. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 2017

  69. [69]

    Practical nonparametric statistics

    W. J. Conover, “Practical nonparametric statistics”. Wiley, 3. ed edition, 1999. ISBN 0471160687

    1999

  70. [70]

    Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying to a W boson pair in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B791(2019) 96, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.073,arXiv:1806.05246

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  71. [71]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine

    A. Hayrapetyan, et. al., “The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine”, Comput. Software. Big Science8(2024) 18,doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4

    doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4 2024

  72. [72]

    The RooFit toolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, “The RooFit toolkit for data modeling”, inProc. 13th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2003), p. MOLT007. 2003.arXiv:physics/0306116. [eConf C0303241, MOLT007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  73. [73]

    The RooStats project

    L. Moneta et al., “The RooStats project”, inProc. 13th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis T echniques in Physics Research (ACAT 2010). 2010. arXiv:1009.1003. [PoS(ACAT2010)057].doi:10.22323/1.093.0057. References 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [74]

    Lectures on statistics in theory: Prelude to statistics in practice

    R. D. Cousins, “Lectures on statistics in theory: Prelude to statistics in practice”, 2018. arXiv:1807.05996

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  75. [75]

    Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics

    E. Gross and O. Vitells, “Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 525,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8, arXiv:1005.1891. 20 21 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria W. Adam , L....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010