pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10732 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · ✦ hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

A search for microscopic black holes, string balls, and sphalerons in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords microscopic black holesstring ballselectroweak sphaleronslarge extra dimensionsCMS experimentLHC13 TeV collisionsbeyond standard model searches
0
0 comments X

The pith

No signals for microscopic black holes, string balls or sphalerons appear in 13 TeV LHC data, excluding masses below 8.4-11.4 TeV in extra-dimension models.

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

The CMS experiment searched a dataset of proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV equivalent to 138 inverse femtobarns for events that could indicate tiny black holes, string balls, or electroweak sphalerons. Two strategies relying on data-driven control samples found no excess over standard model expectations in final states with many energetic jets, leptons, and photons. This absence sets model-dependent limits that rule out black hole and string ball production in large extra dimension scenarios up to masses around 10 TeV. The same data also constrain the rate of sphaleron transitions above 9 TeV to a very small fraction of quark interactions. The results push the testable range for these exotic predictions to higher energies than earlier searches.

Core claim

In models with large extra dimensions, semiclassical black holes and string balls with masses below 8.4-11.4 TeV and 9.0-10.7 TeV respectively are excluded at 95% confidence level, while an upper limit of 0.0034 at 95% CL is set on the fraction of quark-quark interactions above the 9 TeV sphaleron threshold, based on the absence of signals in the full 138 fb^{-1} dataset analyzed with a new phase-space proximity classification method.

What carries the argument

Phase-space proximity classification that groups events by kinematic similarity to isolate candidates with multiple high-momentum jets, leptons, and photons from background using shape-invariant control samples.

If this is right

  • Semiclassical black hole production cannot occur at LHC energies for masses below the excluded range in large extra dimension models.
  • Sphaleron transitions remain rare enough that fewer than 0.34 percent of quark interactions above 9 TeV produce them.
  • Background processes fully account for all observed high-multiplicity events with no detectable new-physics contribution at current energies.
  • Higher-luminosity or higher-energy runs are required to test the same models at larger mass scales.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The limits shrink the viable parameter space for low-scale quantum gravity scenarios that rely on large extra dimensions.
  • The data-driven classification approach can be reused for other searches involving complex final states at future collider energies.
  • Continued non-observation would further delay experimental access to any Planck-scale physics that becomes visible only above 10 TeV.

Load-bearing premise

The kinematic features and phase-space proximity metric separate potential signals from background without introducing biases that depend on the specific models being tested.

What would settle it

An observed excess of events with high scalar sum of transverse momenta that matches the predicted multiplicity and energy distribution for black hole or sphaleron decays in the same dataset would falsify the exclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10732 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The ST (left) and sphericity (right) distributions for various BH (with n = 2) and sphaleron signal models are plotted along with the corresponding distributions for simulated QCD multijet background events. The distributions are normalized to unit area. in particle physics [68–72]. However, less attention has been given to the intrinsic geometry of the phase space manifold where scattering amplitudes are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The SVM score distributions for simulated QCD multijets, and selected BH (with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The SVM score vs. the ST distributions for simulated QCD multijet background (left) and the BH signal model B1 with MD = 2 TeV, MBH = 10 TeV, and n = 2 (right), after the S > 0.1 selection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The ST distribution in the N ≥ 4 (left) and N ≥ 7 (right) in the SI-VR in data is indicated by the black dots. The background prediction is represented by the red line, and the gray band corresponds to the background modeling uncertainty. The lower panels show the difference between observed data and the background prediction, normalized by the total uncertainty. 7.2 Phase space distance method The backgro… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Post-fit ST distributions in VR-FAIL (left) and VR-PASS (right) regions in data. The gray hatched areas include both statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background pre￾diction (yellow histogram). The red line corresponds to the signal model B1, with MD = 2 TeV, MBH = 10 TeV, and n = 2. The lower panels show the difference between observed data and the background prediction, normalized by the to… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The ST distribution in the N ≥ 4 (left) and N ≥ 7 (right) SI-SR in data, indicated by the black dots, along with the background prediction and its uncertainty represented by the red line and gray band, respectively. Lower panel as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Expected and observed model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Post-fit ST distributions in the FAIL (left) and PASS (right) regions in data. The gray shaded area includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction (yellow histogram) while the red and blue lines are B1 signal examples, as noted in the legends. Lower panel as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section for a semiclassical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Excluded Mmin BH values as functions of MD and n for a variety of BLACKMAX (left) and CHARYBDIS2 (right) BH models. minimum black hole mass Mmin BH for different BH models. Upper limits on the number of extra dimensions n max are derived as the value of n at the intersection between the experimental limit curves and the theoretical cross sections, floored to the nearest integer. This limit is well￾defined… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits for SB models with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the pre-exponential factor for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A search for microscopic black holes, string balls, and electroweak sphalerons using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC during the 2016$-$2018 data taking, and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$, is presented. Two search strategies based on control samples in data are used. Model-independent limits on the cross section of physics phenomena with multiple energetic jets, leptons, and photons are set using a method that relies on the shape invariance of the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of all objects in the event. Model-dependent limits on black hole and sphaleron production are set using a newly introduced method that has been developed for the identification of collider events with distinct kinematic features by separating them into classes based on phase space proximity. In the context of models with large extra dimensions, semiclassical black holes and string balls with masses below 8.4$-$11.4 TeV and 9.0$-$10.7 TeV, respectively, are excluded at 95% confidence level, significantly extending the reach beyond previous searches. Results of a dedicated search for electroweak sphalerons are used to derive an upper limit of 0.0034 at 95% confidence level on the fraction of quark-quark interactions above the nominal sphaleron transition energy threshold of 9 TeV.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents a search for microscopic black holes, string balls, and electroweak sphalerons in 13 TeV pp collisions recorded by CMS with 138 fb^{-1} of 2016-2018 data. Model-independent cross-section limits for multi-jet/lepton/photon final states are derived from the shape invariance of the scalar sum of transverse momenta in data control samples. Model-dependent limits on black hole/string ball production and on the sphaleron fraction are obtained via a new event classification technique that partitions events according to a phase-space proximity metric constructed from kinematic features. In large-extra-dimensions models, semiclassical black holes below 8.4-11.4 TeV and string balls below 9.0-10.7 TeV are excluded at 95% CL, and an upper limit of 0.0034 is set on the fraction of quark-quark interactions above the 9 TeV sphaleron threshold.

Significance. If the new classification method is shown to be robust, the results would extend existing mass limits on black holes and string balls by several TeV and provide the first dedicated constraint on the sphaleron transition fraction at the LHC. The consistent use of data-driven control samples for both the model-independent and model-dependent analyses is a methodological strength that reduces dependence on Monte Carlo modeling of backgrounds.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section describing the new event-classification method] The model-dependent exclusions (black holes 8.4-11.4 TeV, string balls 9.0-10.7 TeV, sphaleron fraction <0.0034) are obtained exclusively from the newly introduced phase-space proximity classification. The manuscript must supply quantitative validation (signal-injection closure tests, purity-efficiency curves, or background-shape stability checks) demonstrating that the kinematic metric separates signal from QCD/multijet background without model-dependent biases in the variables used for the limits.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and will update the paper to incorporate the requested validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section describing the new event-classification method] The model-dependent exclusions (black holes 8.4-11.4 TeV, string balls 9.0-10.7 TeV, sphaleron fraction <0.0034) are obtained exclusively from the newly introduced phase-space proximity classification. The manuscript must supply quantitative validation (signal-injection closure tests, purity-efficiency curves, or background-shape stability checks) demonstrating that the kinematic metric separates signal from QCD/multijet background without model-dependent biases in the variables used for the limits.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative validation of the phase-space proximity classification is essential to substantiate the model-dependent results. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection presenting signal-injection closure tests (injecting simulated black-hole, string-ball, and sphaleron events into data control samples and verifying unbiased recovery of the injected yields), purity-efficiency curves versus the proximity-metric threshold, and background-shape stability checks obtained by varying control-region definitions and metric parameters. These studies will explicitly demonstrate that the kinematic metric separates signal from QCD/multijet background without introducing model-dependent biases in the variables entering the limit-setting procedure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's model-independent limits rely on shape invariance of scalar-sum distributions observed directly in data control samples, independent of any signal model or fitted parameters. Model-dependent limits normalize simulation to data without reducing the reported exclusions (black hole/string ball mass thresholds or sphaleron fraction) to any self-defined or fitted quantity by the paper's own equations. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatz smuggling are present; the new phase-space proximity classifier is an analysis tool whose validity is external to the limit-setting procedure itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard high-energy physics assumptions about background modeling and signal kinematics in large-extra-dimensions scenarios. No new particles or forces are postulated; the work constrains existing theoretical constructs using data-driven techniques.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Model background processes are accurately modeled by Monte Carlo simulation and can be validated with data control samples.
    Invoked for both search strategies to establish the expected shape of the scalar-sum distribution in the absence of new physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5566 in / 1476 out tokens · 97923 ms · 2026-05-10T15:25:33.170567+00:00 · methodology

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

90 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Antoniadis, N

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “New dimensions at a millimeter to a fermi and superstrings at a TeV”,Phys. Lett. B436(1998) 257, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00860-0,arXiv:hep-ph/9804398

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00860-0 1998

  2. [2]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter”,Phys. Lett. B429(1998) 263, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3,arXiv:hep-ph/9803315

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)00466-3 1998

  3. [3]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, “Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D59(1999) 086004,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.086004, arXiv:hep-ph/9807344. References 21

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.086004 1999

  4. [4]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “An alternative to compactification”,Phys. Rev. Lett.83 (1999) 4690,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.4690,arXiv:hep-th/9906064

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.4690 1999

  5. [5]

    A Large Mass Hierarchy from a Small Extra Dimension

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension”, Phys. Rev. Lett.83(1999) 3370,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370, arXiv:hep-ph/9905221

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.3370 1999

  6. [6]

    Black holes at the LHC

    S. Dimopoulos and G. L. Landsberg, “Black holes at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 161602,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.161602,arXiv:hep-ph/0106295

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.161602 2001

  7. [7]

    Black holes and submillimeter dimensions

    P . C. Argyres, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, “Black holes and submillimeter dimensions”,Phys. Lett. B441(1998) 96,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01184-8, arXiv:hep-th/9808138

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)01184-8 1998

  8. [8]

    High-energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics

    S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, “High-energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics”,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 056010, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010,arXiv:hep-ph/0106219

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.65.056010 2002

  9. [9]

    Particle creation by black holes

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes”,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199, doi:10.1007/BF02345020. [Erratum:doi:10.1007/BF01608497]

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02345020 1975

  10. [10]

    Black holes and quantum gravity at the LHC

    P . Meade and L. Randall, “Black holes and quantum gravity at the LHC”,JHEP05(2008) 003,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/003,arXiv:0708.3017

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/05/003 2008

  11. [11]

    Quantum black holes with charge, colour, and spin at the LHC

    D. M. Gingrich, “Quantum black holes with charge, colour, and spin at the LHC”,J. Phys. G37(2010) 105008,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/10/105008,arXiv:0912.0826

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/10/105008 2010

  12. [12]

    Colorful quantum black holes at the LHC

    X. Calmet, W. Gong, and S. D. H. Hsu, “Colorful quantum black holes at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B668(2008) 20,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.011,arXiv:0806.4605

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.011 2008

  13. [13]

    String balls at the LHC and beyond

    S. Dimopoulos and R. Emparan, “String balls at the LHC and beyond”,Phys. Lett. B526 (2002) 393,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01525-8,arXiv:hep-ph/0108060

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(01)01525-8 2002

  14. [14]

    ’t Hooft, Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, “Symmetry breaking through Bell-Jackiw anomalies”,Phys. Rev. Lett.37 (1976) 8,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.8

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.37.8 1976

  15. [15]

    A saddle-point solution in the Weinberg-Salam theory,

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, “A saddle point solution in the Weinberg-Salam theory”,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 2212,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.2212

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.2212 1984

  16. [16]

    Bloch wave function for the periodic sphaleron potential and unsuppressed baryon and lepton number violating processes

    S. H. H. Tye and S. S. C. Wong, “Bloch wave function for the periodic sphaleron potential and unsuppressed baryon and lepton number violating processes”,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 045005,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.045005,arXiv:1505.03690

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.045005 2015

  17. [17]

    Search for sphalerons in proton-proton collisions

    J. Ellis and K. Sakurai, “Search for sphalerons in proton-proton collisions”,JHEP04 (2016) 086,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)086,arXiv:1601.03654

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2016)086 2016

  18. [18]

    On the phenomenology of sphaleron-induced processes at the LHC and beyond

    A. Papaefstathiou, S. Pl ¨atzer, and K. Sakurai, “On the phenomenology of sphaleron-induced processes at the LHC and beyond”,JHEP12(2019) 017, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)017,arXiv:1910.04761

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2019)017 2019

  19. [19]

    Search for strong gravity in multijet final states produced in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for strong gravity in multijet final states produced in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,JHEP03(2016) 026, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)026,arXiv:1512.02586. 22

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2016)026 2016

  20. [20]

    Search for quantum black hole production in lepton+jet final states using proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for quantum black hole production in lepton+jet final states using proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 032010,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.032010, arXiv:2307.14967

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.032010 2024

  21. [21]

    Search for black holes and sphalerons in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for black holes and sphalerons in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP11(2018) 042, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)042,arXiv:1805.06013

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)042 2018

  22. [22]

    Search for microscopic black hole signatures at the Large Hadron Collider

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for microscopic black hole signatures at the Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Lett. B697(2011) 434,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.032, arXiv:1012.3375

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.02.032 2011

  23. [23]

    Search for microscopic black holes inppcollisions at √s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for microscopic black holes inppcollisions at √s=7 TeV”, JHEP04(2012) 061,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2012)061,arXiv:1202.6396

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2012)061 2012

  24. [24]

    Search for microscopic black holes inppcollisions at √s= 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for microscopic black holes inppcollisions at √s= 8 TeV”, JHEP07(2013) 178,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)178,arXiv:1303.5338

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2013)178 2013

  25. [25]

    Search for black holes in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for black holes in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B774(2017) 279, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.053,arXiv:1705.01403

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.053 2017

  26. [26]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.165871

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.165871 2025

  27. [27]

    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

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

  28. [28]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05064 2024

  29. [29]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/p10009 2014

  30. [30]

    The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade

    Tracker Group of the CMS Collaboration, “The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade”, JINST16(2021) P02027,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/P02027, arXiv:2012.14304

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/p02027 2021

  31. [31]

    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 Summary CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020

    2017

  32. [32]

    2017 tracking performance plots

    CMS Collaboration, “2017 tracking performance plots”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2017-015, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10017 2020

  34. [34]

    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 23

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017

  35. [35]

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

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/p11021 2024

  36. [36]

    BlackMax: A black-hole event generator with rotation, recoil, split branes, and brane tension

    D.-C. Dai et al., “BlackMax: A black-hole event generator with rotation, recoil, split branes, and brane tension”,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 076007, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.076007,arXiv:0711.3012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.076007 2008

  37. [37]

    CHARYBDIS: A black hole event generator

    C. M. Harris, P . Richardson, and B. R. Webber, “CHARYBDIS: A black hole event generator”,JHEP08(2003) 033,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/08/033, arXiv:hep-ph/0307305

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/08/033 2003

  38. [38]

    Phenomenology of production and decay of spinning extra-dimensional black holes at hadron colliders

    J. A. Frost et al., “Phenomenology of production and decay of spinning extra-dimensional black holes at hadron colliders”,JHEP10(2009) 014, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/014,arXiv:0904.0979

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/10/014 2009

  39. [39]

    BaryoGEN, a Monte Carlo generator for sphaleron-like transitions in proton-proton collisions

    C. Bravo and J. Hauser, “BaryoGEN, a Monte Carlo generator for sphaleron-like transitions in proton-proton collisions”,JHEP11(2018) 041, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)041,arXiv:1805.02786

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)041 2018

  40. [40]

    The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations

    R. Frederix et al., “The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations”, JHEP07(2018) 185,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)07,arXiv:1804.10017. [Erratum:doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)085]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)07 2018

  41. [41]

    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

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5 2008

  42. [42]

    Greybody factors for brane scalar fields in a rotating black-hole background

    S. Creek, O. Efthimiou, P . Kanti, and K. Tamvakis, “Greybody factors for brane scalar fields in a rotating black-hole background”,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 084043, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.084043,arXiv:hep-th/0701288

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.084043 2007

  43. [43]

    Scalar emission in the bulk in a rotating black hole background

    S. Creek, O. Efthimiou, P . Kanti, and K. Tamvakis, “Scalar emission in the bulk in a rotating black hole background”,Phys. Lett. B656(2007) 102, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.050,arXiv:0709.0241

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.050 2007

  44. [44]

    Improved analysis of black hole formation in high-energy particle collisions

    H. Yoshino and V . S. Rychkov, “Improved analysis of black hole formation in high-energy particle collisions”,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 104028, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.104028,arXiv:hep-th/0503171. [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.089905]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.104028 2005

  45. [45]

    Black hole remnants at the LHC

    B. Koch, M. Bleicher, and S. Hossenfelder, “Black hole remnants at the LHC”,JHEP10 (2005) 053,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/10/053,arXiv:hep-ph/0507138

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/10/053 2005

  46. [46]

    Stable TeV - black hole remnants at the LHC: Discovery through di-jet suppression, mono-jet emission and a supersonic boom in the quark-gluon plasma

    H. Stoecker, “Stable TeV - black hole remnants at the LHC: Discovery through di-jet suppression, mono-jet emission and a supersonic boom in the quark-gluon plasma”,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D16(2007) 185,doi:10.1142/S0218271807009930, arXiv:hep-ph/0605062

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271807009930 2007

  47. [47]

    Glimpses on the micro black hole Planck phase

    F. Scardigli, “Glimpses on the micro black hole Planck phase”,Symmetry12(2020) 1519, doi:10.3390/sym12091519,arXiv:0809.1832

    work page doi:10.3390/sym12091519 2020

  48. [48]

    Study of highly-excited string states at the Large Hadron Collider

    D. M. Gingrich and K. Martell, “Study of highly-excited string states at the Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 115009,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.115009, arXiv:0808.2512. 24

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.115009 2008

  49. [49]

    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

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4 2020

  50. [50]

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 2017

  51. [51]

    Upgrades for the CMS simulation

    CMS Collaboration, “Upgrades for the CMS simulation”,J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.608(2015) 012056,doi:10.1088/1742-6596/608/1/012056

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/608/1/012056 2015

  52. [52]

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/p10003 2017

  53. [53]

    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, CMS, 2015

    2015

  54. [54]

    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), no. 02, P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/p02014 2017

  55. [55]

    Pileup removal algorithms

    CMS Collaboration, “Pileup removal algorithms”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-14-001, CMS, 2014

    2014

  56. [56]

    Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, CMS, 2017

    2017

  57. [57]

    Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at √s= 8 TeV”,JINST10(2015) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005,arXiv:1502.02701

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/p06005 2015

  58. [58]

    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

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

  59. [59]

    Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at√s=7 TeV”,JINST7(2012) P10002,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002, arXiv:1206.4071

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/p10002 2012

  60. [60]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015 2018

  61. [61]

    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

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/p07004 2019

  62. [62]

    Studies of quantum chromodynamics with the ALEPH detector

    ALEPH Collaboration, “Studies of quantum chromodynamics with the ALEPH detector”,Phys. Rept.294(1998) 1,doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00045-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(97)00045-8 1998

  63. [63]

    Measurement of event shapes at large momentum transfer with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of event shapes at large momentum transfer with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2211, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2211-y,arXiv:1206.2135. References 25

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2211-y 2012

  64. [64]

    Transverse sphericity of primary charged particles in minimum bias proton-proton collisions at √s=0.9, 2.76 and 7 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Transverse sphericity of primary charged particles in minimum bias proton-proton collisions at √s=0.9, 2.76 and 7 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2124, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2124-9,arXiv:1205.3963

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2124-9 2012

  65. [65]

    Metric space of collider events

    P . T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, “Metric space of collider events”,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 041801,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.041801, arXiv:1902.02346

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.041801 2019

  66. [66]

    The hidden geometry of particle collisions

    P . T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler, “The hidden geometry of particle collisions”, JHEP07(2020) 006,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2020)006,arXiv:2004.04159

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2020)006 2020

  67. [67]

    Which metric on the space of collider events?

    T. Cai, J. Cheng, K. Craig, and N. Craig, “Which metric on the space of collider events?”, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 076003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.076003, arXiv:2111.03670

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.076003 2022

  68. [68]

    Exploring the space of jets with CMS open data

    P . T. Komiske et al., “Exploring the space of jets with CMS open data”,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 034009,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034009,arXiv:1908.08542

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.034009 2020

  69. [69]

    A robust measure of event isotropy at colliders

    C. Cesarotti and J. Thaler, “A robust measure of event isotropy at colliders”,JHEP08 (2020) 084,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2020)084,arXiv:2004.06125

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2020)084 2020

  70. [70]

    The efficacy of event isotropy as an event shape observable

    C. Cesarotti, M. Reece, and M. J. Strassler, “The efficacy of event isotropy as an event shape observable”,JHEP07(2021) 215,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2021)215, arXiv:2011.06599

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2021)215 2021

  71. [71]

    Optimal transport for a novel event description at hadron colliders

    L. Gouskos et al., “Optimal transport for a novel event description at hadron colliders”, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 096003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.096003, arXiv:2211.02029

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.096003 2023

  72. [72]

    Measurements of multijet event isotropies using optimal transport with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of multijet event isotropies using optimal transport with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP10(2023) 060, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)060,arXiv:2305.16930

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2023)060 2023

  73. [73]

    Covariantizing phase space

    A. J. Larkoski and T. Melia, “Covariantizing phase space”,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 094014,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.094014,arXiv:2008.06508

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.094014 2020

  74. [74]

    The phase space distance between collider events

    T. Cai et al., “The phase space distance between collider events”,JHEP09(2024) 054, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)054,arXiv:2405.16698

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2024)054 2024

  75. [75]

    Machine Learning , year =

    C. Cortes and V . Vapnik, “Support-vector networks”,Mach. Learn.20(1995) 273, doi:10.1007/BF00994018

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00994018 1995

  76. [76]

    Sensitivity of searches for new signals and its optimization

    G. Punzi, “Sensitivity of searches for new signals and its optimization”,eConf030908 (2003) MODT002,doi:10.48550/arXiv.physics/0308063, arXiv:physics/0308063

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.physics/0308063 2003

  77. [77]

    The 2D Alphabet background modeling method and its use in the search for an excited bottom quark

    L. Corcodilos, “The 2D Alphabet background modeling method and its use in the search for an excited bottom quark”. PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 2021

    2021

  78. [78]

    On the Interpretation ofχ 2 from Contingency Tables, and the Calculation of P

    R. A. Fisher, “On the interpretation ofχ 2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of p”,J. Roy. Stat. Soc.85(1922) 87,doi:10.2307/2340521

    work page doi:10.2307/2340521 1922

  79. [79]

    Clarification of the use of chi-square and likelihood functions in fits to histograms

    S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, “Clarification of the use of chi-square and likelihood functions in fits to histograms”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth.221(1984) 437, doi:10.1016/0167-5087(84)90016-4. 26

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-5087(84)90016-4 1984

  80. [80]

    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, CMS, 2025

    2025

Showing first 80 references.