Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper reports the first measurement of the CKM matrix element |Vcb| using on-shell W-boson decays, obtaining a value consistent with low-energy determinations and showing that top-quark decays can probe this coupling at the weak scale.

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

2026-08-02 18:02 UTC pith:QKY5DFH6

load-bearing objection First |Vcb| extraction from on-shell W decays; a well-executed proof-of-principle whose only real caveat is the in-situ charm-tagging calibration. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.16414 v2 pith:QKY5DFH6 submitted 2026-03-17 hep-ex

Measurement of the |V_(cb)| element of the CKM matrix in tbar{t} decays with the ATLAS detector

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords CKM matrix|Vcb|top-quark decaysW-boson decayscharm-jet taggingtop-antitop eventsheavy-flavour tagging
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 paper claims to measure |Vcb|, the coupling of the W boson to charm and bottom quarks, at an energy scale set by the W mass rather than by B-meson decays. It does so by counting top-antitop events in which one W decays to a charm and a bottom quark relative to events in which it decays to a charm and any down-type quark; that ratio equals |Vcb|^2 in the three-generation Standard Model. From 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions the analysis obtains |Vcb| = (50 +11 -14) x10^-3, consistent within one standard deviation with the world average of about 41 x10^-3. The value corresponds to a branching fraction for the rare t -> b bbar c decay of (8 +/- 4) x10^-4. The result matters because it tests whether the CKM coupling measured at low energy is the same at a much higher momentum transfer, where new physics might alter the decay.

Core claim

The central claim is that |Vcb|^2 equals the ratio of on-shell W+ -> c bbar decays to W+ -> c qbar decays (q any down-type quark), measured in single-lepton top-antitop events with four jets. Events are split into eight b/c-tagging categories and three neural-network score regions, and a profile-likelihood fit floats |Vcb| together with the ttbar, ttbar+c and ttbar+b normalisations, the charm-tagging efficiency, and the charm-to-bottom mistag rate. The fit yields (50 +11 -14) x10^-3, consistent within one standard deviation with the world average of about 41 x10^-3 from B decays, and implies B(t -> b bbar c) = (8 +/- 4) x10^-4; the observed significance relative to |Vcb|=0 is 2.0 sigma (1.9

What carries the argument

The central object is the flavour-tagging matrix T (Eq. 2), which encodes the efficiencies and mistag probabilities for light-, charm- and bottom-flavoured jets. Two of its entries, the charm-tagging efficiency eps_c and the charm-to-bottom mistag rate f_cb, cannot be taken from the existing calibration because that calibration assumes a fixed |Vcb|, so they are floated in the fit. The identity that anchors the method is N(2b1c)/N(2b0c) ~ eps_c/(2 - eps_c): since the CKM matrix predicts that hadronic W decays to c+light and to light+light occur at equal rates, the observed yield ratio fixes the charm-tagging efficiency while |Vcb| is extracted from the 3b1c/2b1c ratio. A neural network train

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that, apart from the tiny |Vcb|^2 correction, a W boson decays to a charm quark plus a light quark just as often as to two light quarks; if new physics changed this balance, the charm-tagging calibration and the extracted |Vcb| would be biased.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be a high-statistics run in which the charm-tagging efficiency is calibrated independently of CKM assumptions (for example, using D-meson-tagged charm jets from W -> c s decays) and the 3b1c/2b1c yield ratio is then remeasured. If |Vcb| moved from the measured 50 x10^-3 toward the B-decay world average of 41 x10^-3, the central result here would be a calibration artefact; if it stayed at 50 x10^-3, the deviation would signal genuine new physics or an error in the low-energy extractions.

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

If this is right

  • It provides the first determination of |Vcb| at q^2 ~ M_W^2, testing the coupling at momentum transfers far above the B-decay scale.
  • Consistency with the low-energy world average supports the Standard-Model description of both B decays and the rare t -> b bbar c decay, and constrains new physics in the W-c-b vertex.
  • The measurement translates into a branching fraction B(t -> b bbar c) = (8 +/- 4) x10^-4, the first direct constraint on this rare top decay.
  • With statistical and systematic uncertainties of comparable size, larger data samples and improved tagging directly reduce the total uncertainty.
  • The fit demonstrates that charm-tagging efficiency, mistag rates, and ttbar+heavy-flavour normalisations can all be constrained simultaneously in situ.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that a higher-precision version of this measurement could act as an independent high-energy check on the inclusive-versus-exclusive |Vcb| discrepancy, since its systematic uncertainties have essentially no overlap with those of B-decay determinations.
  • We infer that the result is conditional on the Standard-Model flavour composition of hadronic W decays; calibrating charm tagging from a CKM-independent source (for instance charm jets tagged via D mesons) would test whether this assumption biases the extraction.
  • We infer that the same ratio method could be extended to other couplings, such as |Vub|, or to searches for new physics that changes the c+light versus light+light balance in W decays.
  • We infer that splitting the sample by the kinematics of the top decay could search for a momentum-transfer dependence of |Vcb|; the current sample is too small to give sensitivity to such running.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of the CKM matrix element |V_{cb}| using on-shell W-boson decays, based on 140 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV pp collisions recorded by ATLAS. The analysis uses single-lepton t-tbar events with exactly four jets, dividing them into eight tagging categories and three neural-network score regions, and performs a 24-bin profile-likelihood fit. The parameter of interest |V_{cb}| is extracted from the ratio of W+ -> c bbar to W+ -> c qbar decays, with in-situ determination of the charm-tagging efficiency and charm-to-bottom mistag rate. The measured value is |V_{cb}| = (50 +11 -14) x 10^{-3}, consistent with the PDG world average of (41.1 +/- 1.2) x 10^{-3} within one standard deviation, with an observed (expected) significance of 2.0 sigma (1.9 sigma) relative to |V_{cb}|=0.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides the first direct measurement of |V_{cb}| at the high momentum-transfer scale of on-shell W decay, complementing the low-q^2 determinations from B decays. The analysis is technically thorough: it uses a dedicated |V_{cb}|=1 simulated sample, a two-step treatment of jet-flavour tagging with in-situ charm calibration, extensive systematic uncertainties including t-tbar modelling and flavour-tagging calibrations, closure tests, and pseudo-data validation. The in-situ calibration approach is a notable methodological development, though it carries an assumption-dependence that needs to be demonstrated negligible. Given the low statistical precision (2-sigma significance), the physics impact is incremental rather than transformative, but the paper establishes a new and potentially useful avenue for CKM measurements at the LHC.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.2 and Sec. 5] The in-situ charm-tagging calibration and the |V_{cb}| extraction are performed in the same profile-likelihood fit. The anchor for epsilon_c is the relation N(2b1c)/N(2b0c) ~ epsilon_c/(2-epsilon_c), which assumes that the SM flavour composition of single-lepton t-tbar decays is known, specifically that the W -> c qbar and W -> light+light rates are equal up to the |V_{cb}|^2 term. The text states that the |V_{cb}| dependence is 'negligible' but provides no quantitative demonstration. Because the absolute scale of the measurement is set by this assumption, the paper should include a robustness test in which epsilon_c and f_cb are fixed to an external calibration (e.g., the standard ATLAS c-jet calibration in Ref. [76]) and the resulting shift in |V_{cb}| is reported. If this shift is comparable to the 11 x 10^{-3} total uncertainty, the quoted central value would not be robust.
  2. [Table 3 (note) and Sec. 8.2] The breakdown of uncertainties states that the contribution from the in-situ c-jet calibration 'cannot be measured using the same approach' and is 'incorporated into the statistical uncertainty along with the contributions from other freely floating parameters.' This means that the systematic uncertainty associated with the calibration anchor and the correlated extraction of epsilon_c, f_cb, and |V_{cb}| is not quantified as a separate component. The total systematic uncertainty may therefore be underestimated if the model dependence of the in-situ calibration is larger than assumed. The authors should either provide an explicit evaluation of this systematic component or justify why it is adequately covered by the floating parameters in the fit.
  3. [Eq. (1) and Sec. 5] Eq. (1) defines the denominator as sum over q=d,s,b, which includes q=b (the signal) in the same way as the numerator, so the ratio equals |V_{cb}|^2 exactly. However, the analysis uses the 3b1c-to-2b1c ratio as a proxy, where the 2b1c category contains W -> c qbar with q=d,s, i.e., the denominator excludes the q=b contribution. The text says the difference is a negligible correction, but the reduction from Eq. (1) to the actual fitted ratio should be shown explicitly, including the size of the neglected |V_{cb}|^2 term in the denominator. This is needed to confirm that the measured parameter is indeed |V_{cb}| rather than |V_{cb}|/sqrt(1-|V_{cb}|^2) or another related quantity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The generator name 'Powheg BoxRes' appears without a space or hyphen; standard usage is 'Powheg Box Res' or 'PowhegBoxRes'. Please align with the cited reference.
  2. [Sec. 5] The sentence '|V_{cb}|^2 ~ N(3b1c)/N(2b1c)' is introduced as an approximation, but Eq. (1) is an exact relation. The text would benefit from a short derivation linking the exact ratio to the reconstruction-level tagging-category ratio, including the role of mistagging and acceptance.
  3. [Sec. 6.2] The closure test of the tagging-rate extraction is described only qualitatively ('good agreement is observed'). A quantitative statement (e.g., chi2 per degree of freedom or maximum deviation) would make the validation more convincing.
  4. [Sec. 7.2] The t-tbar PS and hadronisation uncertainty is split into tt+light, tt+c, and tt+b components, with a 50% decorrelation across NN bins for the tt+light NN component. The motivation is clear, but the exact implementation (how many nuisance parameters result) could be stated more explicitly in Table 3 or the text.
  5. [Sec. 8.2] The reinterpretation as B(t -> b bbar c) = (8 +/- 4) x 10^{-4} uses the branching fraction B(t -> b q qbar) = (66.5 +/- 1.4)% from Ref. [104], which is a 2015 measurement. A more recent determination, if available, would be preferable, though this does not affect the main result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: |Vcb| is extracted from a direct yield ratio; the in-situ charm calibration is a model-dependent anchor, not an assumed value of |Vcb|.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the required sense. Eq. (1) defines |Vcb|^2 as the ratio of on-shell W→c bbar to W→c qbar rates, and the measured |Vcb| is obtained from a binned profile-likelihood fit over 24 regions after simultaneously floating |Vcb|^2, ttbar+HF normalizations, ε_c, and f_cb. The in-situ charm calibration (Sec. 6.2) is anchored to the SM/CKM prediction that B(W→c light) ≈ B(W→light light) up to O(|Vcb|^2); this does not input the value of |Vcb| being measured, since the correction is negligible and would remain so over the quoted uncertainty range. Moreover, the signal-sensitive 3b1c/2b1c ratio is essentially independent of ε_c because both categories contain one c-jet, so the |Vcb| extraction does not reduce to the calibrated ε_c by construction. The standard ATLAS c-jet calibration [76] is deliberately not used because it assumes the SM value of |Vcb|, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the method of Ref. [9] is an external theory proposal, and Ref. [104] is used only for the derived branching-fraction reinterpretation, not for the central |Vcb| extraction. The skeptic's identifiability concern is a legitimate model-dependence/robustness check (e.g., fixing ε_c to an external calibration and re-fitting), but it is a statement about assumptions and parameter correlations, not an instance where the prediction reduces to its input by definition. Therefore no circular step is established.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Standard Model/CKM flavor composition of single-lepton ttbar decays, the in-situ calibration of charm-tagging efficiencies, and the external measurement of the hadronic top-quark branching fraction. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • μ_tt (overall ttbar normalization) = 0.99 ± 0.03
    Floated in profile likelihood to constrain the total ttbar rate.
  • μ_tt+c (ttbar+charm normalization) = 1.60 +0.64/-0.60
    Floated because the MC rate of ttbar+charm may be underestimated.
  • μ_tt+b (ttbar+bbar normalization) = 1.45 +0.54/-0.34
    Floated because the MC rate of ttbar+bbar may be underestimated.
  • ε_c (charm-tagging efficiency) in three NN regions = 0.35±0.02, 0.34±0.02, 0.33 +0.02/-0.01
    Calibrated in situ because the standard ATLAS c-jet calibration assumes |Vcb|.
  • f_cb (charm-to-bottom mistag rate) in three NN regions = (25±6)e-3, (26±3)e-3, (26±2)e-3
    Calibrated in situ together with ε_c.
  • NN score region boundaries = 0.643, 0.736
    Chosen by optimizing expected sensitivity on MC; affect binning of the fit.
  • μ_|Vcb| (signal strength, parameter of interest) = 1.19 +0.27/-0.35
    Ratio of post-fit to pre-fit |Vcb|; pre-fit value 0.04173 used by generators.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Three-generation CKM unitarity: Σ_q |V_cq|^2 = 1
    Used in Eq. (1) to set the denominator of the branching-ratio ratio to 1, and in Sec. 5 to assert the hadronic W decay flavor composition in ttbar events.
  • domain assumption The hadronic W→c+light and W→light+light rates are equal as predicted by the 2x2 CKM with θ_C=0.225
    Used in the in-situ charm-tagging calibration (Sec. 5, Sec. 6.2) via N(2b1c)/N(2b0c)≃ε_c/(2−ε_c).
  • domain assumption Phase-space differences between W+→c dbar, c sbar, c bbar are negligible (≲0.3%)
    Stated in the footnote to Eq. (1), ignoring mass effects in the denominator.
  • domain assumption Per-jet tagging probabilities are independent; the tagging matrix T rows sum to unity
    Used in Eq. (3)-(4) to compute PF-to-TC migration; validated by closure tests.
  • domain assumption The NN trained on MC correctly separates single-lepton ttbar from tt+HF incomplete events; tt+HF normalizations can be constrained by background-enriched regions
    Relied on in Sec. 5 and Sec. 6.1; the fit floats μ_tt+c and μ_tt+b to accommodate MC rate misestimates.
  • domain assumption B(t→b qbar q) = (66.5±1.4)% from Ref. [104] is used for the reinterpretation in Eq. (8)
    External measurement used to convert |Vcb|^2 to B(t→b bbar c).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 56531 in / 23027 out tokens · 218253 ms · 2026-08-02T18:02:48.123023+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The first measurement of the magnitude of the CKM quark mixing matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ using on-shell $W$-boson decays is presented. The measurement is made with $t\bar{t}$ events from $pp$ collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $140$ fb$^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. A value of: $$|V_{cb}| = (50^{+11}_{-14})\times10^{-3}$$ is measured, where the uncertainties have roughly equal contributions from the limited size of the data sample and from systematic effects. This is consistent with existing measurements made at much lower energy scales in $B$ hadron decays. While the sensitivity does not yet rival that of previous determinations, this novel approach probes a very different physical situation, namely the rare hadronic $t\rightarrow b\bar{b} c$ decay at high momentum-transfer, rather than semileptonic $B$ decays at low momentum-transfer.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Simultaneous efficiency measurements of $b$- and $c$-jets in $t\bar{t}$ events from $\sqrt{s}=13.6$ TeV $pp$ collision data collected with the ATLAS detector

    hep-ex 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Simultaneous measurements of b-jet tagging and c-jet mistagging efficiency scale factors for the ATLAS GN2 tagger achieve precisions below 2% and 5% respectively using 56 fb⁻¹ of 13.6 TeV ttbar data.

  2. Precision physics at the muon collider: $m_W$ and CKM matrix elements

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    A 10 TeV lepton collider using the effective gamma-W to W process could improve m_W precision beyond 10 MeV and extract CKM elements like V_cb with reduced hadronic uncertainties via high-precision hadronic calorimetr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 73 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cabibbo,Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys

    N. Cabibbo,Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 531

    1963

  2. [2]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa,CP-Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction, Progress of Theoretical Physics49(1973) 652

    1973

  3. [3]

    Fernandez et al

    E. Fernandez et al. (MAC Collaboration),Lifetime of Particles Containing𝑏Quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.51(1983) 1022

    1983

  4. [4]

    Lockyer et al

    N.S. Lockyer et al. (Mark II Collaboration),Measurement of the Lifetime of Bottom Hadrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.51(1983) 1316

    1983

  5. [5]

    Gilman,Review of Particle Properties, Appendix III The Kobayashi-Maskawa Mixing Matrix, Rev

    F.J. Gilman,Review of Particle Properties, Appendix III The Kobayashi-Maskawa Mixing Matrix, Rev. Mod. Phys.56(1984) S296

    1984

  6. [6]

    Wolfenstein,Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix, Phys

    L. Wolfenstein,Parametrization of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix, Phys. Rev. Lett.51(1983) 1945

    1983

  7. [7]

    Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, Phys

    Y. Aoki et al.,FLAG Review 2024, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 014508, arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Ceccucci, Z

    A. Ceccucci, Z. Ligeti, Y. Sakai, CKM Quark-Mixing Matrix in Particle Data Group Review of Particle Properties, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    2024

  9. [9]

    P. F. Harrison and V. E. Vladimirov, A Method to Determine|𝑉𝑐𝑏|at the Weak Scale in Top Decays at the LHC, JHEP01(2019) 191, arXiv:1810.09424 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    El-Khadra and P

    A.X. El-Khadra and P. Urquijo,Semileptonic𝑏-Hadron Decays, Determination of𝑉𝑐𝑏,𝑉𝑢𝑏 in Particle Data Group Review of Particle Properties, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    2024

  11. [11]

    K. S. Babu,Renormalization Group Analysis of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix, Z. Phys. C35(1987) 69

    1987

  12. [12]

    Balzereit, T

    C. Balzereit, T. Hansmann, T. Mannel and B. Plümper, Renormalization group evolution of the CKM matrix, Eur.Phys.J.C9(1999) 197, we also thank T. Mannel for useful discussions,issn: 1434-6052

    1999

  13. [13]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1995,isbn: 9780201503975

    1995

  14. [14]

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

    2008

  15. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Insertable B-Layer: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    arXiv 2010

  16. [16]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  18. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P10004, arXiv:2007.12539 [physics.ins-det]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Collaboration Software and Firmware, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2021-001, 2021,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2767187

    arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

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

    2001

  23. [23]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

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

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

    2003

  26. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The simulation principle and performance of the ATLAS fast calorimeter simulation FastCaloSim, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2010-013, 2010,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1300517

    arXiv 2010

  27. [27]

    Sjöstrand, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The Pythia 8 A3 tune description of ATLAS minimum bias and inelastic measurements incorporating the Donnachie–Landshoff diffractive model, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-017, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2206965

    arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Frixione, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  31. [31]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Frixione, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  33. [33]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06(2010) 043, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  34. [34]

    Beneke, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov and P. Nason,Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation, Phys. Lett. B710(2012) 612, arXiv:1111.5869 [hep-ph]. 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [36]

    Bärnreuther, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Czakon and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [38]

    Czakon and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Czakon, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    Czakon and A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos and L. Maiani,Weak Interactions with Lepton–Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D2(1970) 1285

    1970

  42. [42]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  44. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 196, arXiv:1512.01178 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [47]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  49. [49]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier and L. Hofer, Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 220, arXiv:1604.06792 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 866, arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  52. [52]

    Gleisberg and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  53. [53]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP03(2008) 038, arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  54. [54]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP09(2012) 049, arXiv:1111.1220 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  55. [55]

    Catani, F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  56. [56]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  57. [57]

    Frixione, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Studies on top-quark Monte Carlo modelling for Top2016, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-020, 2016,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2216168

    arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    Höche, F

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  61. [61]

    Anastasiou, L

    C. Anastasiou, L. Dixon, K. Melnikov and F. Petriello,High-precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at next-to-next-to leading order, Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 094008, arXiv:hep-ph/0312266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  62. [62]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  63. [63]

    J. Alwall et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07(2014) 079, arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Tools for estimating fake/non-prompt lepton backgrounds with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, JINST18(2023) T11004, arXiv:2211.16178 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at√𝑠=13TeV , ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-026, 2015,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037717

    arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2𝑝𝑝collision data set at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 578, arXiv:2012.00578 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 292, arXiv:1603.05598 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv:2007.02645 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  72. [72]

    Cacciari, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of pile-up mitigation techniques for jets in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=8TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 581, arXiv:1510.03823 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction and its significance with the ATLAS detector using140fb−1 of√𝑠=13TeV𝑝𝑝collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 606, arXiv:2402.05858 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 47, arXiv:1909.00761 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.