Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 83 references

A search of 138 fb^-1 of LHC proton collisions finds no dark matter signal in events with a Higgs boson decaying to bottom quarks, and sets new exclusion limits on two benchmark models.

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 10:02 UTC pith:F3FWFKBS

load-bearing objection Solid, incremental mono-Higgs search with clean control-region design; the CR-to-SR shape transfer is a real question but not a fatal one. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.11330 v2 pith:F3FWFKBS submitted 2026-01-16 hep-ex

Search for dark matter produced in association with a Higgs boson decaying to bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 14.80.Bn14.80.Fd13.85.Rm
keywords dark mattermono-Higgsbottom quark pairbaryonic Z' model2HDM+a modelCMSLHCmissing transverse momentum
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.

This paper reports a search for dark matter particles produced together with a Standard Model Higgs boson, where the Higgs decays to a bottom-antibottom quark pair. Analyzing proton-proton collision data at 13 TeV from the LHC, corresponding to 138 fb^-1 of integrated luminosity, the authors find that the observed events agree with the Standard Model background prediction. No significant excess is seen. From this null result, they set 95% confidence level upper limits on the production cross section for two benchmark dark matter models: the baryonic-Z' model and the 2HDM+a model. For the baryonic-Z' model, mediator masses below 2.25 TeV are excluded for a dark matter mass of 1 GeV, and for the 2HDM+a model, heavy pseudoscalar masses between 850 and 1300 GeV are excluded for a light pseudoscalar mass of 350 GeV. A sympathetic reader would care because this mono-Higgs channel directly probes the coupling between dark matter and the Higgs sector, complementing other dark matter searches and narrowing the allowed parameter space for these theoretical frameworks.

Core claim

The central claim is that no dark matter signal is observed in the mono-Higgs final state where the Higgs boson decays to bottom quarks. The analysis uses both a Lorentz-boosted (merged) topology and a resolved topology, covering a wide range of Higgs transverse momentum. A two-dimensional maximum likelihood fit is performed to the signal regions and control regions, with the dominant tt and Z(nu nu)+jets backgrounds estimated from data using lepton-enriched control regions. The observed data are consistent with the background-only hypothesis. The paper then interprets this null result in two simplified models, setting upper limits at 95% confidence level. For the baryonic-Z' model, Z' boson

What carries the argument

The central object is the mono-Higgs signature: an event with large missing transverse momentum (p_T^miss) recoiling against a Higgs boson candidate decaying to a pair of bottom quarks. The analysis categorizes events into a merged topology where the two b quarks are collimated into a single large-radius jet, and a resolved topology with two separately resolved b-tagged jets. The signal extraction relies on a two-dimensional maximum likelihood fit over the Higgs candidate mass and p_T^miss, where the dominant backgrounds are estimated from data using control regions: single-lepton events for tt and dilepton events for Z(nu nu)+jets. The key mechanism is the simultaneous fit that ties the Hig

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the shape of the Higgs-boson-candidate mass distribution in the control regions is identical to that in the signal region up to a single scale factor, after all selections, for the dominant tt and Z(nu nu)+jets backgrounds.

What would settle it

A concrete observation that would falsify the central claim would be a significant excess of events in the signal region over the background prediction, peaking at the Higgs boson mass in the m_SD or m_bb distribution. For example, if a scan over m_Z' showed an observed limit that deviates from the expected limit by more than 2 standard deviations in a correlated way across p_T^miss bins, it might indicate a signal. Alternatively, if a closure test using simulated pseudo-data shows that the control-region transfer systematically biases the background estimate by more than the assigned uncertai

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

If this is right

  • If no signal exists, then the null result tightens constraints on the baryonic-Z' model, excluding mediators below 2.25 TeV and thus narrowing the parameter space for this spin-1 mediator dark matter scenario.
  • For the 2HDM+a model, the exclusions on mA, ma, sin(theta), and tan(beta) reduce the viable parameter space for this two-Higgs-doublet plus pseudoscalar mediator framework, complementing constraints from other searches.
  • The improved sensitivity from the neural-network-based tagger for boosted h->bb decays demonstrates that particle-flow-based deep learning taggers can significantly enhance searches for heavy resonances in boosted topologies.
  • The combined 2016-2018 dataset provides a consistent interpretation across a total luminosity of 138 fb^-1, matching the dataset size of the analogous ATLAS search and enabling direct cross-experiment comparisons.
  • The agreement between data and background predictions in the control regions validates the background estimation procedure for this final state, supporting the reliability of the exclusion limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The null result implies that any new physics producing mono-Higgs events with h->bb must have a cross section below the observed upper limits, which is a direct input to global fits of dark matter models; one could combine these limits with other mono-X searches to further constrain the coupling structure.
  • The sensitivity of this search is limited by the systematic uncertainty on the control-region-to-signal-region transfer; a future analysis could reduce this by using an ABCD method or a fully data-driven shape estimate from sidebands, potentially improving the limits.
  • The analysis covers only the h->bb decay mode, which has the largest branching fraction; extending the same strategy to other Higgs decay modes (e.g., h->gamma gamma or h->WW*) could probe complementary regions of the model parameter space.
  • The HL-LHC will provide much more data; based on the current scaling, one could project that the baryonic-Z' mass exclusion might extend to around 3-4 TeV, though this would depend on the background systematic scaling.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a search for dark matter produced in association with a Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair, using 101 fb^-1 of 2017-2018 CMS data and a statistical combination with a previous 2016 search (35.9 fb^-1). Events are separated into merged (boosted) and resolved categories, targeting the mono-h(bb) final state. The dominant tt and Z(nu nu)+jets backgrounds are estimated from dedicated single-lepton and dilepton control regions, and a two-dimensional binned maximum likelihood fit is performed over the Higgs-candidate mass and pTmiss (or recoil U) distributions. No significant deviation from the standard model background prediction is observed. The results are interpreted in the baryonic-Z' and 2HDM+a models, yielding improved 95% CL exclusion limits: Z' masses below 2.25 TeV for m_chi=1 GeV, and heavy pseudoscalar masses between 850 and 1300 GeV for m_a=350 GeV.

Significance. If the result stands, it provides the most stringent CMS limits to date in the mono-Higgs h->bb channel and demonstrates the value of modern jet tagging techniques (ParticleNet-MD) and the combined 2016-2018 dataset. The paper is careful in its construction of orthogonal categories, and the systematic uncertainty table (Table 3) is comprehensive. The analysis is reproducible in principle through the HEPData record, and the null result is a concrete, falsifiable constraint on two important simplified dark matter models. The main value is as a competitive experimental constraint rather than a new methodological development; its significance is therefore incremental but solid.

major comments (2)
  1. [5.3, Tables 1 and 2] The transfer of the dominant tt and Z+jets mass shapes from control regions to signal regions is load-bearing but not validated. Section 5.3 states that the SR Higgs-candidate mass distribution in each pTmiss bin is 'tied to the corresponding U window in the CRs via a scale factor'. A single scale factor per bin absorbs normalization differences, but the CR and SR selections differ in ways that can change the m_SD or m_bb shape: the merged SR requires N_bjets=0 while the t(l) CR requires N_bjets=1; the merged Z(ll) CR drops the ParticleNet-MD double-b tag; the resolved t(l) CR allows N_jets>=1 while the SR requires N_jets<=2; and the resolved Z(ll) CR drops b tagging on both jets. The shape-based systematics listed in Section 6 (JES, b-tagging efficiency, PDF/scale) are not derived from these selection differences and cannot fully cover a shape distortion induced by, e.g., a correlation
  2. [Figures 3-6 and Section 5.3] The post-fit agreement in the control regions does not by itself validate the shape transfer to the signal regions. The fit can absorb global normalization differences or broad shape changes through nuisance parameters, but a per-bin scale factor cannot correct for a mass-dependent shape difference that varies across the m_SD/m_bb window. To support the central claim that the observed SR data agree with the background prediction, the authors should show pre-fit SR mass templates derived from the CR shapes, or a validation in the SR sidebands (e.g., outside the 70-160 GeV window) where the CR-derived background can be compared to data before unblinding the signal window. Without such a closure check, the background estimation in the SR rests on an unverified assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5] Typo: 'analyis regions' should be 'analysis regions'; 'analys' appears in the same section.
  2. [Section 5.3] The scale-factor nuisance parameter is described only vaguely; it would be useful to state whether it is freely floating per U-bin or constrained by a prior, and whether it is common to electron and muon CRs.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] The resolved t(l) CR column shows N_jets>=1 while the SR requires N_jets<=2; this difference is a specific example of the shape-transfer issue raised above and should be highlighted in the text or a footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the analysis is a direct experimental search whose background model is data-driven and whose signal hypothesis is externally defined.

full rationale

The paper reports a search for DM+Higgs production in the h->bb channel. The central claim, that observed data agree with the SM background prediction, is a fitted outcome rather than an input: the signal strength mu is the free parameter extracted by the maximum-likelihood fit, and the exclusion limits are obtained by comparing observed data with background-only fits. The dominant backgrounds tt and Z(nu nu)+jets are estimated from dedicated control regions via scale factors, with the CR-to-SR shape transfer being a modeling assumption subject to systematic uncertainties, not a circular reuse of the target result. Signal cross sections and kinematic distributions come from externally defined benchmark models (baryonic-Z' and 2HDM+a) generated with MadGraph, and the quoted branching fraction for h->bb is taken from the PDG. Self-citations, e.g. the previous CMS 2016 search, are used for comparison and statistical combination, but the new exclusion limits are not derived from those earlier results; they are obtained from the present data and fit. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its target claim, and there is no circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The only quantity actually fitted to data is the signal strength mu in the search fit. The listed benchmark couplings, scanned masses, and mixing parameters are external model choices from prior literature, not fitted values. The central exclusions depend on the validity of the background-estimation transfer and on the accuracy of the Monte Carlo and detector calibrations, which are standard domain assumptions in collider searches.

free parameters (8)
  • m_{Z'} (baryonic Z' mediator mass) = scanned 100-3500 GeV
    Theory parameter scanned in the baryonic-Z' interpretation; quoted limit uses m_chi=1 GeV.
  • m_chi (dark matter candidate mass) = scanned 1-800 GeV
    Theory parameter scanned in the baryonic-Z' interpretation.
  • g_q (Z'-quark coupling) = 0.25 (fixed benchmark)
    Fixed benchmark value from Refs. [15,16]; exclusion limits scale with this coupling.
  • g_chi (Z'-DM coupling) = 1 (fixed benchmark)
    Fixed benchmark value from Refs. [15,16].
  • m_a, m_A (2HDM+a pseudoscalar masses) = scanned; benchmark m_a=350, m_A=1000 GeV
    Model parameters scanned in the 2HDM+a interpretation; exclusion ranges are quoted for specific benchmarks.
  • sin(theta) (2HDM+a mixing angle) = scanned; fixed 0.35 for mass scans
    Model parameter controlling production rate and shape; scan excludes 0.15-0.95 for benchmark masses.
  • tan(beta) (2HDM+a vacuum expectation value ratio) = scanned; fixed 1 for mass scans
    Model parameter controlling couplings; scan excludes values below 4.2 for benchmark masses.
  • lambda_3 = lambda_P1 = lambda_P2 = 3 (fixed benchmark)
    Quartic couplings fixed to benchmark values from Refs. [15-17] to define the 2HDM+a signal cross sections.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The CR-to-SR transfer via scale factors captures all relevant differences between control regions and signal regions for tt and Z+jets backgrounds.
    Section 5.3 ties SR mass distributions to CR U-windows through scale factors; if false, background estimates and limits are biased.
  • domain assumption Monte Carlo simulation of signal and background, after data-derived corrections, accurately models kinematics and detector response.
    Sections 3-4 use MC for all processes; the analysis depends on the validity of generator predictions and detector simulation with corrections.
  • domain assumption The benchmark simplified models (baryonic Z' and 2HDM+a) are the correct theoretical frameworks for interpretation.
    Section 1 and Section 7 interpret limits only within these models; exclusions do not apply outside them.
  • standard math The asymptotic CLs approximation is valid for 95% confidence-level limits in this analysis regime.
    Section 7 uses the asymptotic formulae of Ref. [82]; standard but an approximation for small signal or background yields.
  • domain assumption The h->bb branching fraction is 0.582.
    Section 7 uses the PDG value from Ref. [83] to relate signal cross sections to expected yields.
  • domain assumption Detector performance, trigger, b-tagging, and ParticleNet-MD tagger calibrations are correctly measured and corrected.
    Section 6 treats these as nuisance parameters with assigned uncertainties; the central limits depend on these calibrations, which cannot be independently audited from the manuscript.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 44725 in / 11025 out tokens · 120554 ms · 2026-08-03T10:02:06.632746+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

A search for dark matter particles produced in association with a Higgs boson decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV is presented. The data, collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, correspond to an integrated luminosity of 101 fb$^{-1}$. The analysis is performed in exclusive categories targeting both Lorentz-boosted (merged) and resolved b jet pair topologies, covering a wide range of Higgs boson transverse momentum. A statistical combination is made with a previous search using data collected in 2016 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The observed data agree with the standard model background predictions. Constraints are placed on models predicting new particles or interactions, such as those in the simplified frameworks of baryonic-Z' and 2HDM+a, where the latter is a type-II two-Higgs-doublet model featuring a heavy pseudoscalar with an additional light pseudoscalar. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the production cross section for these models. For the baryonic-Z' model, Z' boson masses below 2.25 TeV are excluded for a dark matter particle candidate mass of 1 GeV. In the 2HDM+a model, heavy pseudoscalar masses between 850 and 1300 GeV are excluded for a light pseudoscalar mass of 350 GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11330 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagrams for simplified benchmark models considered in this analysis: the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic representation of the analysis regions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The AK8 jet mSD distributions after the simultaneous likelihood background-only fit sliced in three U bins, for the merged-category t(e) (above) and t(µ) (below) CRs. The black markers with statistical uncertainty bars show the observed data, the stacked colored histograms show the predicted background, and the gray shading shows the systematic un￾certainty in the prediction. The lower panels show the rati… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The AK8 jet mSD distributions after the simultaneous likelihood background-only fit sliced in three U bins, for the merged-category Z(ee) (above) and Z(µµ) (below) CRs. The black markers with statistical uncertainty bars show the observed data, the stacked col￾ored histograms show the predicted background, and the gray shading shows the systematic uncertainty in the prediction. The lower panels show the ra… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dijet mbb distributions after the simultaneous likelihood background-only fit sliced in five U bins, for the resolved-category t(e) (above) and t(µ) (below) CRs. The black markers with statistical uncertainty bars show the observed data, the stacked colored his￾tograms show the predicted background, and the gray shading shows the systematic uncer￾tainty in the prediction. The lower panels show the rati… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dijet mjj distributions after the simultaneous likelihood background-only fit sliced in five U bins, for the resolved-category Z(ee)(above) and Z(µµ)(below) CRs. The black mark￾ers with statistical uncertainty bars show the observed data, the stacked colored histograms show the predicted background, and the gray shading shows the systematic uncertainty in the prediction. The lower panels show the ratio… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The AK8 jet mSD (above) and dijet mbb (below) distributions after the simultaneous likelihood background-only fit sliced in three and five p miss T bins, for the merged- and resolved￾category SRs respectively. The black markers with statistical uncertainty bars show the ob￾served data, the stacked colored histograms show the predicted background, and the gray shading shows the systematic uncertainty in the… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the signal cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observed and expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the signal cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck

    Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck”,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A1,doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880, arXiv:1807.06205. References 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Dark matter candidates from particle physics and methods of detection

    J. L. Feng, “Dark matter candidates from particle physics and methods of detection”, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48(2010) 495, doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101659,arXiv:1003.0904

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  3. [3]

    On the relic, cosmic abundance of stable weakly interacting massive particles

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, “On the relic, cosmic abundance of stable weakly interacting massive particles”,Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 1585, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.1585. [Erratum:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.3263]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.33.1585 1986

  4. [4]

    Cosmological constraints on the properties of weakly interacting massive particles

    G. Steigman and M. S. Turner, “Cosmological constraints on the properties of weakly interacting massive particles”,Nucl. Phys. B253(1985) 375, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90537-1

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90537-1 1985

  5. [5]

    Supersymmetric dark matter

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter”,Phys. Rept.267(1996) 195,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Mono-Higgs-boson: A new collider probe of dark matter

    L. Carpenter et al., “Mono-Higgs-boson: A new collider probe of dark matter”,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 075017,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.075017,arXiv:1312.2592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Mono-Higgs detection of dark matter at the LHC

    A. Berlin, T. Lin, and L.-T. Wang, “Mono-Higgs detection of dark matter at the LHC”, JHEP06(2014) 078,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2014)078,arXiv:1402.7074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Searching for dark matter at LHC with mono-Higgs production

    A. A. Petrov and W. Shepherd, “Searching for dark matter at LHC with mono-Higgs production”,Phys. Lett. B730(2014) 178,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.01.051, arXiv:1311.1511

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, “Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints”,Phys. Rept.405(2005) 279,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031, arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    The minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: a singlet scalar

    C. P . Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, “The minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: a singlet scalar”,Nucl. Phys. B619(2001) 709, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00513-2,arXiv:hep-ph/0011335

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    Heavy dark matter through the Higgs portal

    J. March-Russell, S. M. West, D. Cumberbatch, and D. Hooper, “Heavy dark matter through the Higgs portal”,JHEP07(2008) 058, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/058,arXiv:0801.3440

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    Dark matter benchmark models for early LHC Run 2 searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS dark matter forum

    D. Abercrombie et al., “Dark matter benchmark models for early LHC Run 2 searches: Report of the ATLAS/CMS dark matter forum”,Phys. Dark Univ.27(2020) 100371, doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100371,arXiv:1507.00966. 24

    arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Next-generation spin-0 dark matter models

    T. Abe et al., “LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Next-generation spin-0 dark matter models”,Phys. Dark Univ.27(2020) 100351,doi:10.1016/j.dark.2019.100351, arXiv:1810.09420

    arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Simplified dark matter models with two Higgs doublets: I. Pseudoscalar mediators

    M. Bauer, U. Haisch, and F. Kahlhoefer, “Simplified dark matter models with two Higgs doublets: I. Pseudoscalar mediators”,JHEP05(2017) 138, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2017)138,arXiv:1701.07427

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models

    G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002,arXiv:1106.0034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Search for dark matter produced in association with a Higgs boson decaying to a pair of bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for dark matter produced in association with a Higgs boson decaying to a pair of bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 280,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6730-7, arXiv:1811.06562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Search for dark matter produced in association with a standard model Higgs boson decaying into b-quarks using the full Run 2 dataset from the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for dark matter produced in association with a standard model Higgs boson decaying into b-quarks using the full Run 2 dataset from the ATLAS detector”,JHEP11(2021) 209,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)209, arXiv:2108.13391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Identifying boosted objects withN-subjettiness

    J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg, “Identifying boosted objects withN-subjettiness”,JHEP03 (2011) 015,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2011)015,arXiv:1011.2268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.167738

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.167738 2026

  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]

    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

  28. [28]

    Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x,arXiv:1512.00815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction toPYTHIA8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [30]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179. References 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [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”,JHEP07 (2014) 079,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079,arXiv:1405.0301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod”,JHEP11(2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070,arXiv:0709.2092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  35. [35]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 112003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.112003, arXiv:1803.08856

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    Single-topt-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavors scheme withPOWHEGand aMC@NLO

    R. Frederix, E. Re, and P . Torrielli, “Single-topt-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavors scheme withPOWHEGand aMC@NLO”,JHEP09(2012) 130, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130,arXiv:1207.5391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEGmethod

    E. Re, “Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEGmethod”,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1547, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z,arXiv:1009.2450

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  39. [39]

    Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions

    J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions”,Eur. Phys. J. C53(2008) 473, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5,arXiv:0706.2569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    Merging meets matching inMC@NLO

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    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. doi:10.17181/CERN.VU8I.D59J

    doi:10.17181/cern.vu8i.d59j 2015

  43. [43]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots

    CMS Collaboration, “ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020. 26

    2016

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons andν τ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P10005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/P10005,arXiv:1809.02816

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network”,JINST17(2022) P07023,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/07/P07023, arXiv:2201.08458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

    FASTJETuser manual

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [50]

    Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data”,JINST15(2020) P09018, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/P09018,arXiv:2003.00503

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    Pileup per particle identification

    D. Bertolini, P . Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran, “Pileup per particle identification”,JHEP10 (2014) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)059,arXiv:1407.6013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  52. [52]

    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

  53. [53]

    Jet energy scale and resolution measurements with legacy Run 2 data collected by CMS at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution measurements with legacy Run 2 data collected by CMS at 13 TeV”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2021-033, 2021

    2021

  54. [54]

    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

  55. [55]

    Better jet clustering algorithms

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, “Better jet clustering algorithms”,JHEP08(1997) 001,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1997/08/001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  56. [56]

    Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, “Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering”, inProc. Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics: Hamburg, Germany, April 27–30, 1998, p. 270. 1998.arXiv:hep-ph/9907280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  57. [57]

    Towards an understanding of jet substructure

    M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P . Salam, “Towards an understanding of jet substructure”,JHEP09(2013) 029,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)029, arXiv:1307.0007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  58. [58]

    Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC

    J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P . Salam, “Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 242001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.242001,arXiv:0802.2470

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Soft drop

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, “Soft drop”,JHEP05(2014) 146, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146,arXiv:1402.2657. References 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    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

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    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 Note CMS-DP-2023-005, 2023

    2023

  63. [63]

    Jet tagging via particle clouds

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, “Jet tagging via particle clouds”,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 056019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019,arXiv:1902.08570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Calibration of the mass-decorrelated PARTICLENETtagger for boosted bb and c c jets using LHC Run 2 data

    CMS Collaboration, “Calibration of the mass-decorrelated PARTICLENETtagger for boosted bb and c c jets using LHC Run 2 data”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2022-005, 2024

    2022

  65. [65]

    Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST20(2025) P11006, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/11/P11006,arXiv:2510.10228

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    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

  67. [67]

    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

  68. [68]

    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

  69. [69]

    Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV with the CMS detector”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-20-001, 2025

    2025

  70. [70]

    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”,JHEP07(2018) 161,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161, arXiv:1802.02613

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  71. [71]

    Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP11 (2021) 153,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)153,arXiv:2107.13021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run 2

    J. Butterworth et al., “PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run 2”,J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001,arXiv:1510.03865

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Observation of the associated production of a single top quark and a W boson in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the associated production of a single top quark and a W boson in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.112(2014) 231802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.231802,arXiv:1401.2942

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  74. [74]

    Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,JHEP01(2011) 080,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080, arXiv:1012.2466. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    Measurement of the ZZ production cross section and Z→ℓ +ℓ−ℓ′+ℓ′− branching fraction in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the ZZ production cross section and Z→ℓ +ℓ−ℓ′+ℓ′− branching fraction in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B763 (2016) 280,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.054,arXiv:1607.08834

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  76. [76]

    Measurement of the inclusive and differential WZ production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive and differential WZ production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”, JHEP07(2022) 032,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)032,arXiv:2110.11231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples

    R. Barlow and C. Beeston, “Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples”,Comput. Phys. Commun.77(1993) 219,doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-W

    doi:10.1016/0010-4655(93)90005-w 1993

  79. [79]

    Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  80. [80]

    Presentation of search results: The CL s technique

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

    doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313 2002

Showing first 80 references.