Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Strange B meson fraction measured at 0.219; isospin holds to 5%

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 01:10 UTC pith:KR34YDFP

load-bearing objection Solid, careful CMS B-parking measurement: first absolute charmonium PFR normalization and a clean isospin test, but headline f_s values lean on a disclosed QCD-factorization ratio. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2602.10270 v2 pith:KR34YDFP submitted 2026-02-10 hep-ex

Measurement of B meson production fraction ratios in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV using open-charm and charmonium decays

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords B meson production fractionsproduction fraction ratiosf_s/f_df_s/f_uisospin invarianceopen-charm decayscharmonium decaysQCD factorization
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 measures how often b quarks produced in high-energy proton collisions turn into the strange B_s meson instead of the non-strange B^+ and B^0 mesons. Using a specially recorded sample of about ten billion b hadrons, it reports average production fraction ratios = 0.219 ± 0.016 and = 0.218 ± 0.017, and a combined f_d/f_u = 0.956 ± 0.043, consistent with unity at the 5% precision level. This supports isospin invariance in B meson production at hadron colliders. The analysis also derives, for the first time, absolute normalization constants that convert charmonium-based relative measurements into absolute production fraction ratios. These numbers directly enter measurements of B_s branching fractions, including the rare B_s → μ+μ− decay.

Core claim

The paper claims that the production fractions of B_s relative to B^0 and B^+ are flat in the kinematic range 8 < pT < 60 GeV and |y| < 2.25, with average values <f_s/f_d> = 0.219 ± 0.008 (stat) ± 0.014 (syst) and <f_s/f_u> = 0.218 ± 0.008 (stat) ± 0.015 (syst). It further claims f_d/f_u = 0.956 ± 0.043, within 5% of unity and therefore consistent with isospin invariance in B meson production at hadron colliders. Using the open-charm results as a reference, the paper derives the first absolute normalizations for charmonium-based production fraction measurements, c_sd = 1.64 ± 0.14 and c_su = 2.02 ± 0.18, and reports branching fraction ratios between charmonium and open-charm decays that impr

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a double-ratio construction. For the absolute f_s/f_d measurement, efficiency-corrected yields of the open-charm decays B0 → π+D− and B0_s → π+ D_s− (π−φ) are combined with the QCD-factorization prediction for the ratio B(B0 → K+D−)/B(B0_s → π+ D_s−) — a standard perturbative computation of nonleptonic B decay rates — with the pion/kaon ambiguity handled using the world-average ratio B(B0 → K+D−)/B(B0 → π+D−). For the charmonium channels, the relative yield ratios R_s and R_s^d are normalized to the open-charm results through double ratios c_sd and c_su, which cancel any pT dependence and can be applied to any charmonium sample.

Load-bearing premise

The absolute f_s/f_d and f_s/f_u values rest on the QCD-factorization prediction for the ratio B(B0 → K+D−)/B(B0_s → π+ D_s−); if that predicted ratio is biased, the measured production fractions shift by the same relative amount.

What would settle it

Measure the two branching fractions entering the f_s/f_d extraction directly—for example at an electron-positron collider running on the Υ(5S) resonance, where B_s pairs are produced without fragmentation theory—and compare their ratio with the QCD-factorization prediction. A discrepancy beyond combined uncertainties would rescale the reported f_s fractions.

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

If this is right

  • The reported average values can be used as external inputs to normalize measurements of B_s branching fractions, including the rare decay B_s → μ+μ−, reducing its dominant systematic uncertainty.
  • The absolute normalization constants c_sd and c_su allow charmonium-based relative measurements to be reported as absolute production fraction ratios, not just shapes.
  • The charmonium-to-open-charm branching fraction ratios improve the precision of world averages, especially for B_s → J/ψφ.
  • Isospin invariance in B meson production at hadron colliders is confirmed at the 5% precision level.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the absolute normalizations are built as double ratios, they should remain valid for any charmonium-based analysis even if the open-charm yields are much smaller; reusing them would let future experiments skip the fully hadronic open-charm reconstruction.
  • The 5%-level isospin consistency still leaves a 2.2% uncertainty inherited from Υ(4S)-based branching fraction inputs; measuring f_d/f_u purely from proton-proton data without those inputs is a natural next step.
  • The paper's own note of a puzzling discrepancy between theory and experiment for the individual decay channels suggests that the f_s/f_d result could be tested by measuring the B_s → πD_s branching fraction directly at a B_s factory, which would also sharpen the global value of f_s/f_u.

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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a CMS measurement of B-meson production fraction ratios in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV, using the 2018 B-parking data set (41.6 fb^-1) with high-rate single-muon triggers. The open-charm modes B+ -> pi+D0, B0 -> pi+D-, and B0s -> pi+Ds- are used to measure f_s/f_d and f_s/f_u as functions of B pT (8-60 GeV) and |y| (<2.25), yielding averages <f_s/f_d> = 0.219 +/- 0.008 +/- 0.014 and <f_s/f_u> = 0.218 +/- 0.008 +/- 0.015. The same data set provides charmonium measurements of relative PFRs R_s and R_s^d, and open-charm results are used to set an absolute normalization for charmonium-based PFRs via constants c_sd and c_su. Three charmonium-to-open-charm branching-fraction ratios are also measured, with improved precision for the B0s modes. A combined f_d/f_u = 0.956 +/- 0.043 is obtained and used to test isospin invariance, which is found to hold within about 5% precision.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides the first absolutely normalized charmonium-based PFR measurement at CMS, a useful input for Bs branching-fraction determinations (e.g., Bs -> mu+ mu-), and a precise test of isospin invariance in pp collisions. The analysis is technically careful: signal yields are extracted from binned maximum-likelihood fits with shape constraints from simulated samples; systematic uncertainties are explored with alternative parameterizations; probe- and tag-side categories provide cross-checks; and the agreement with previous CMS/LHCb measurements is documented. The data are available in HEPData. The main caveat is that the absolute values of f_s/f_d, f_s/f_u, and the normalizations c_sd/c_su inherit the QCD-factorization ratio B(B0 -> K+D-)/B(B0s -> pi+Ds-) from Ref. [31], which is disclosed and assigned a 4.2% systematic uncertainty; the f_d/f_u isospin test and the branching-fraction ratios in Eqs. (7)-(9) do not depend on this input.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (1)] The central absolute results - <f_s/f_d>, <f_s/f_u>, and the normalizations c_sd/c_su in Eqs. (10)-(11) - are multiplied by the QCD-factorization ratio B(B0 -> K+D-)/B(B0s -> pi+Ds-) from Ref. [31]. The text notes a 'puzzling substantial discrepancy' in the individual decay channels and states that the ratio is in good agreement with experiment, but no numerical comparison is given. Please (i) quote the theoretical and experimental values of this ratio and their uncertainties, (ii) justify that the individual discrepancies cancel in the ratio, and (iii) state explicitly in the abstract or conclusions that the absolute f_s/f_d and f_s/f_u values are conditional on this theory input. This is a disclosed external input, but it is load-bearing for the absolute scale.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables 3 and 4] The track selection column reads 'Track |eta|>2.4' in both tables; this should be '|eta|<2.4' as stated in the text of Section 5.1.
  2. [Table 7] The row 'Total systematic uncertainty <7.9 <7.7 <7.2' appears inconsistent with the quadrature sum of the quoted global uncertainties (7.4%, 6.3%, 5.6%) and the maximum bin-to-bin uncorrelated uncertainties (up to 4.7%). For f_s/f_u, the quadrature sum would exceed 8%. Please clarify how the total is defined.
  3. [Section 8.1] The text states the simulation statistical uncertainty is 1.7-3.7%, while Table 7 lists 2.2-3.7% for all quantities. Please reconcile.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'rigtht' should be 'right'.
  5. [Section 9.5] The phrase 'universal constants' may be too strong; the constants are validated only within the measured pT and rapidity range. Suggest rewording to 'constants within the measured kinematic range' or adding a caveat.
  6. [Section 9.3] The tag-side charmonium statistical uncertainty of +/-0.002 on f_d/f_u is surprisingly small compared to the other channels; a sentence explaining the event counts that drive this precision would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: absolute f_s/f_d and f_s/f_u inherit a disclosed external QCD-factorization ratio (Ref. [31]), while the f_d/f_u isospin test and branching-fraction ratios are independent of that input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and none of the headline results reduces by construction to its inputs. The open-charm f_s/f_d and f_s/f_u (Eqs. 1 and 3) are measured yield ratios (N_corr from this data set) multiplied by external inputs: PDG charm branching fractions, the world-average B(B0→π+D−)/B(B0→K+D−) ratio, and the QCD-factorization ratio B(B0→K+D−)/B(B0s→π+Ds−) from Ref. [31] — an external non-CMS theory paper whose stated assumptions do not contain the target f_s/f_d. The paper explicitly flags this input's limitation (Section 4.1: 'puzzling substantial discrepancy between the theory predictions and the experimental measurements in the individual decay channels ... so we will rely on this theoretical framework to extract the f_s/f_d ratio'), propagates its uncertainty (4.2% global, Table 7), and notes that the ratio itself agrees with experiment; this is a disclosed external dependence weighted as a correctness risk, not a fitted input called a prediction. The f_d/f_u isospin test is independent: Section 4.1 states 'no theoretical calculations are needed' for Eq. (2), and the B-factory branching fractions are explicitly converted to r±,0 = 1.057±0.023 to remove the f_u=f_d assumption. The branching-fraction ratios in Eqs. (7)-(9) cancel production fractions entirely, providing an independent cross-check against world averages. The charmonium absolute normalizations c_sd/c_su (Eqs. 10-11) and the tag-side PFRs converted with them are transparently calibrated to the open-charm result (Section 4: 'we utilize the measured PFRs in the open-charm channels and normalize the relative measurement of PFRs in the charmonium channels'), i.e., a calibration transfer based on new charmonium yields, not a prediction of the same quantity. CMS self-citations (Refs. [7], [9]) are used for comparison, not as load-bearing inputs. The central remaining caveat is the validity of the external theory ratio, which the paper discloses and budgets; this does not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or ad hoc parameters. It depends on external theory predictions and world-average constants, which are listed as domain assumptions. There are no hand-fitted parameters that determine the central result beyond the standard nuisance parameters of the fits, which are not the kind of free parameters the ledger targets.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The QCD-factorization prediction for B(B0 -> K+D-)/B(B0_s -> pi+ D_s-) from Ref. [31] is correct
    Used in Eq. (1) to convert the measured yield ratio into f_s/f_d. The paper notes a discrepancy between theory and data for the individual branching fractions but claims the ratio is reliable.
  • domain assumption The B-parking single-muon trigger leaves the probe-side b-hadron decay unbiased
    The open-charm and probe-side charmonium measurements assume the tag-side muon trigger does not bias the flavor or kinematics of the other (probe) b hadron. This is discussed in Section 3.1 and checked indirectly via tag/probe consistency.
  • domain assumption Simulation reweighting (to data and FONLL) accurately models detector acceptance and efficiency ratios
    All efficiency ratios are taken from simulated samples with reweighting-based corrections (Section 7). If the reweighting fails to capture bin-to-bin efficiency variations, the PFR shapes would be biased.
  • domain assumption External inputs (CKM matrix elements, decay constants, lifetimes, world-average branching fractions, r+-0) in Table 2 are correct
    The PFR formulas in Eqs. (1-3) and the branching-fraction ratio measurements in Eqs. (7-9) rely on these world-average values and on r+-0 = 1.057 +/- 0.023 from Ref. [11].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 48766 in / 11044 out tokens · 122753 ms · 2026-08-03T01:10:47.318828+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Production fraction ratios of B$^+$, B$^0$, and B$^0_\mathrm{s}$ mesons are measured in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV using a special data set recorded in 2018 with high-rate triggers designed to collect an unbiased sample of $10^{10}$ b hadrons with the CMS experiment at the LHC. These data allow the study of the open-charm decays of B mesons (B$_\mathrm{(s)}$ $\to$ $\pi$D$_\mathrm{(s)}$) where the D meson decays into fully hadronic final states. By utilizing known branching fractions and precise theoretical calculations, production fraction ratios as functions of B meson transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) and rapidity ($y$) are measured using the open-charm decays in the kinematic range of 8 $\lt$ $p_\mathrm{T}$ $\lt$ 60 GeV and $\lvert y \rvert$ $\lt$ 2.25. In addition, the same data set is used to measure the relative production fraction ratios with the charmonium decay channels (B$_\mathrm{(s)}$ $\to$ X$\,$J/$\psi$ with X indicating a K$^+$, K$^*$(892)$^0$, or $\phi$(1020) meson) where the J/$\psi$ meson decays into a pair of muons. The open-charm results are used to normalize the relative production fraction ratios obtained from the charmonium samples. Measurements of the ratios of branching fractions of B meson decays to charmonium and open-charm final states are also reported, which will improve the world-average values of these ratios. Finally, we test isospin invariance in B meson production in proton-proton collisions and observe that it holds within the experimental precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10270 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Tabulated data for this analysis can be found in the HEPData database [14]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Examples of fits to the B candidate mass distribution (corrected by the D meson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of fits to the B candidate mass distribution used to extract the signal in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of fits to the B candidate mass distribution used to extract the signal in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The production fraction ratios f s/ fd (upper row) and f s/ fu (lower row) as functions of pT (left column) and |y| (right column), measured using open-charm decays. The vertical error bars show the combined statistical and bin-to-bin uncorrelated systematic uncertainty. The global uncertainties are not included. The red line is the average over the full reconstructed kinematic range, and the blue dashed l… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The relative production fraction ratios Rs (upper row) and R d s (lower row) as func￾tions of pT (left column) and |y| (rigtht column), measured using charmonium decays. For comparison, the recent CMS [7] and LHCb [4] measurements are also presented. The error bars include both statistical and bin-to-bin uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. Values enclosed in angle brackets represent averages over pT , w… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The production fraction ratios fd/ fu as functions of pT (left) and |y| (right) measured using both the open-charm and charmonium decays, without an assumption of isospin invari￾ance. The error bars include both statistical and bin-to-bin uncorrelated systematic uncertain￾ties. The global uncertainties of 5.7% for the open-charm analysis 4.8% for both charmonium analyses are not shown. We calculate a weigh… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the fd/ fu measurements across different channels. The “Combined” value, shown above the black dashed line, is obtained from a combined χ 2 fit of the measure￾ments from two statistically independent channels: the open-charm and tag-side charmonium. Additionally, the plot presents the previous CMS result [7] for comparison. The blue dashed line at unity corresponds to fd = fu . 9.4 Measuremen… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The R d s and Rs values measured in the charmonium analysis, converted to f s/ fd (left) and f s/ fu (right) using the absolute normalizations csd and csu, respectively. The error bars include both statistical and bin-to-bin uncorrelated systematic uncertainties. For compar￾ison, PFR measurements from the open-charm analysis, LEP [47], and CMS [7] (converted to f s/ fu using csu) are overlaid, along with t… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the f s/ fu measurements at high pT (pT > 18 GeV) across different channels. The blue dashed line and shaded band represent the LEP measurement and its uncer￾tainty [47], respectively, included for comparison. The Rs values obtained in the charmonium analysis in the tag-side category and the previous CMS measurement [7] are converted to f s/ fu using the absolute normalization factor csu. 10… 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

48 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Measurement of b-hadron production fractions in 7 TeV pp collisions

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of b-hadron production fractions in 7 TeV pp collisions”,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 032008,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.032008, arXiv:1111.2357

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Measurement of the fragmentation fraction ratiof s/f d and its dependence on B meson kinematics

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of the fragmentation fraction ratiof s/f d and its dependence on B meson kinematics”,JHEP04(2013) 001, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2013)001,arXiv:1301.5286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Measurement of b hadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of b hadron fractions in 13 TeV pp collisions”,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 031102,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.031102, arXiv:1902.06794

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Measurement off s/f u variation with proton-proton collision energy and B-meson kinematics

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement off s/f u variation with proton-proton collision energy and B-meson kinematics”,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 122002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.122002,arXiv:1910.09934. 30

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Precise measurement of thef s/f d ratio of fragmentation fractions and of B0 s decay branching fractions

    LHCb Collaboration, “Precise measurement of thef s/f d ratio of fragmentation fractions and of B0 s decay branching fractions”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 032005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.032005,arXiv:2103.06810

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Determination of the ratio of b-quark fragmentation fractions fs/f d in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Determination of the ratio of b-quark fragmentation fractions fs/f d in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 262001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.262001,arXiv:1507.08925

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Measurement of the dependence of the hadron production fraction ratiof s/f u andf d/f u on B meson kinematic variables in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the dependence of the hadron production fraction ratiof s/f u andf d/f u on B meson kinematic variables in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 121901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.121901,arXiv:2212.02309

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Precise measurement of the branching fractions for B0 s →D s (∗)+Ds (∗)− and first measurement of the Ds ∗+Ds ∗− polarization using e+e− collisions

    Belle Collaboration, “Precise measurement of the branching fractions for B0 s →D s (∗)+Ds (∗)− and first measurement of the Ds ∗+Ds ∗− polarization using e+e− collisions”,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 031101,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.031101, arXiv:1208.0323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Measurement of the B 0 s →µ +µ− decay properties and search for the B0 →µ +µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the B 0 s →µ +µ− decay properties and search for the B0 →µ +µ− decay in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B842 (2023) 137955,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137955,arXiv:2212.10311

    arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, andτ-lepton properties as of 2023

    HFLAV Collaboration, “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, andτ-lepton properties as of 2023”, 11, 2024.arXiv:2411.18639

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Novel approaches to determine B ± and B0 meson production fractions

    F. Bernlochner et al., “Novel approaches to determine B ± and B0 meson production fractions”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 014007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.014007, arXiv:2306.04686

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Enriching the physics program of the CMS experiment via data scouting and data parking

    CMS Collaboration, “Enriching the physics program of the CMS experiment via data scouting and data parking”,Phys. Rep.1115(2025) 678, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.006,arXiv:2403.16134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurements for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-001, 2018

    2018

  14. [14]

    HEPDATArecord for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.158357

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.158357 2026

  15. [15]

    The CMS Phase-1 pixel detector upgrade

    W. Adam et al., “The CMS Phase-1 pixel detector upgrade”,JINST16(2021) P02027, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/P02027,arXiv:2012.14304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020

    2017

  17. [17]

    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

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366. References 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    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,arXiv:1003.4038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    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

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    The EvtGen particle decay simulation package

    D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(01)00089-4 2001

  26. [26]

    PHOTOS: a universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections. Version 2.0

    E. Barberio and Z. Was, “PHOTOS: a universal Monte Carlo for QED radiative corrections. Version 2.0”,Comput. Phys. Commun.79(1994) 291, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(94)90074-4

    doi:10.1016/0010-4655(94)90074-4 1994

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states

    M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda, “QCD factorization for exclusive, nonleptonic B meson decays: General arguments and the case of heavy light final states”,Nucl. Phys. B591(2000) 313,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00559-9, arXiv:hep-ph/0006124

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  29. [29]

    Tests of factorization and SU(3) relations in B decays into heavy-light final states

    R. Fleischer, N. Serra, and N. Tuning, “Tests of factorization and SU(3) relations in B decays into heavy-light final states”,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 014017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014017,arXiv:1012.2784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  30. [30]

    Two-body non-leptonic heavy-to-heavy decays at NNLO in QCD factorization

    T. Huber, S. Kr ¨ankl, and X.-Q. Li, “Two-body non-leptonic heavy-to-heavy decays at NNLO in QCD factorization”,JHEP09(2016) 112,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)112, arXiv:1606.02888

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    A puzzle in ¯B0 (s) →D (∗)+ (s) {π−,K −}decays and extraction of thef s/f d fragmentation fraction

    M. Bordone et al., “A puzzle in ¯B0 (s) →D (∗)+ (s) {π−,K −}decays and extraction of thef s/f d fragmentation fraction”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 951, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08512-8,arXiv:2007.10338

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  33. [33]

    Light-meson leptonic decay rates in lattice QCD+QED

    M. Di Carlo et al., “Light-meson leptonic decay rates in lattice QCD+QED”,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 034514,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034514,arXiv:1904.08731

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    PDG 2025 averages

    Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, “PDG 2025 averages”. Averages for the 2025 edition of the Review of Particle Physics. https://hflav-eos.web.cern.ch/hflav-eos/osc/PDG_2025. 32

    2025

  35. [35]

    CMS tracking performance results from early LHC operation

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS tracking performance results from early LHC operation”,Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 1165,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1491-3, arXiv:1007.1988

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    Dalitz plot analysis ofD + s →K +K−π+

    BaBar Collaboration, “Dalitz plot analysis ofD + s →K +K−π+”,Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 052001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.052001,arXiv:1011.4190

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  38. [38]

    sPlot: A Statistical tool to unfold data distributions

    M. Pivk and F. R. Le Diberder, “sPlot: A Statistical tool to unfold data distributions”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A555(2005) 356,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2005.08.106, arXiv:physics/0402083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  39. [39]

    XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system”, inProc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2016.arXiv:1603.02754. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python

    F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python”,J. Machine Learning Res. 12(2011) 2825,arXiv:1201.0490

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of translation

    N. L. Johnson, “Systems of frequency curves generated by methods of translation”, Biometrika36(1949) 149,doi:10.1093/biomet/36.1-2.149

    doi:10.1093/biomet/36.1-2.149 1949

  42. [42]

    A study of the reactionsψ ′ →γγψ

    M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactionsψ ′ →γγψ”. PhD thesis, Stanford University,

  43. [43]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  44. [44]

    Thep T spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction

    M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P . Nason, “Thep T spectrum in heavy-flavour hadroproduction”,JHEP05(1998) 007,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1998/05/007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  45. [45]

    Tracking performances for charged pions with Run2 legacy data

    CMS Collaboration, “Tracking performances for charged pions with Run2 legacy data”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2022-012, 2022

    2022

  46. [46]

    Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences

    S. Jackman, “Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences”. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA, 2009.doi:10.1002/9780470686621

    work page doi:10.1002/9780470686621 2009

  47. [47]

    Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, andτ-lepton properties as of 2018

    HFLAV Collaboration, “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, andτ-lepton properties as of 2018”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 226,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8156-7, arXiv:1909.12524. 33 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria W. Adam , J.W. Andr...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [1980]

    SLAC Report SLAC-R-236