arxiv: 2604.24531 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ✦ hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Search for associated production of a Higgs boson and two vector bosons via vector boson scattering at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 17:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex

keywords Higgs bosonvector boson scatteringVVHH couplingcoupling modifierCMS experiment13 TeVproton-proton collisionsquartic coupling

0 comments

The pith

The VVHH coupling modifier is excluded outside 0.40 to 1.60 at 95% CL by a new vector boson scattering search.

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

This paper reports a search for Higgs boson production together with two vector bosons through vector boson scattering in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by CMS. Events are selected with two forward jets, a boosted Higgs decaying to b quarks, and zero to two leptons from the vector boson decays. The analysis constrains the effective coupling modifier κ_VV that controls the strength of the VVHH vertex. Under the assumption that all other couplings take their standard-model values, values of κ_VV outside the interval 0.40 to 1.60 are excluded at 95% confidence level. The result supplies the first dedicated experimental bound on this interaction.

Core claim

Using 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV data, the search excludes the VVHH process at 95% CL for observed (expected) values of the coupling modifier κ_VV outside 0.40 < κ_VV < 1.60 (0.34 < κ_VV < 1.66), assuming standard-model values for all other couplings. Separate limits are placed on κ_2W and κ_2Z, and on the allowed region in the two-dimensional κ_2W-κ_2Z plane.

What carries the argument

The effective coupling modifier κ_VV that rescales the strength of the direct interaction between two vector bosons and the Higgs boson.

If this is right

The VVHH interaction can be tested independently of other Higgs couplings.
Separate constraints are obtained on the individual modifiers κ_2W and κ_2Z.
The allowed region in the κ_2W-κ_2Z plane is delimited by the data.
This channel opens a new experimental window on quartic Higgs-vector boson couplings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Deviations of κ_VV from unity would signal physics beyond the standard model that modifies the Higgs-vector boson sector.
Higher-luminosity LHC runs can tighten the interval around the standard-model value of 1.
The same final-state signatures could be combined with other Higgs measurements to reduce model dependence.

Load-bearing premise

All other Higgs couplings are fixed to their standard-model values.

What would settle it

An observed excess of events in the signal region that is inconsistent with the predicted rate for any κ_VV inside the quoted interval would invalidate the exclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24531 by CMS Collaboration.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Examples of tree-level Feynman diagrams for the production of VVH via VBS, with view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL constraints on the VBS VVH pro view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL constraints on the VBS VVH pro view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Observed (solid) and expected (dashed) exclusion regions corresponding to 1, 2, and view at source ↗

read the original abstract

A search for Higgs boson (H) production in association with two vector bosons (V = W, Z) via vector boson scattering (VBS) is presented using proton-proton collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV by the CMS experiment, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Events containing two forward jets consistent with VBS, a large-radius jet from the decay of a boosted H to a pair of b quarks, and 0, 1, or 2 charged leptons coming from V decays are selected. The process is excluded at 95% CL for observed (expected) values of the VVHH coupling modifier $\kappa_\mathrm{VV}$ outside the interval 0.40 $\lt$ $\kappa_\mathrm{VV}$ $\lt$ 1.60 (0.34 $\lt$ $\kappa_\mathrm{VV}$ $\lt$ 1.66), assuming standard model values for all other couplings, thus establishing a novel probe of the VVHH interaction. Constraints are also set on the individual $\kappa_\mathrm{2W}$ and $\kappa_\mathrm{2Z}$ coupling modifiers, and on the allowed region in the $\kappa_\mathrm{2W}$-$\kappa_\mathrm{2Z}$ plane.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CMS adds a new limit on κ_VV from VBS Higgs production in the boosted bb channel, but the result stays conditional on SM values for other couplings.

read the letter

This CMS search looks at Higgs production with two vector bosons through vector boson scattering, using the boosted decay to bb and up to two leptons. The key result is the 95% CL limit on the coupling modifier κ_VV of 0.40 to 1.60 observed, which is new for this final state. The paper does a good job defining the VBS topology with forward jets and the boosted Higgs tag with a large-radius jet. Reporting limits on κ_2W, κ_2Z, and their joint plane is a plus, giving more complete information than just the combined modifier. The analysis uses 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV data, which is the full Run 2 sample. The exclusion is stated clearly with the assumption that other couplings are at SM values. The main soft spot is that assumption. If other couplings deviate, the κ_VV interval loses meaning. VBS analyses can have tricky backgrounds from non-resonant processes and the boosted selection requires good understanding of jet grooming and substructure. The abstract gives no numbers on systematic uncertainties or background validation, so it's difficult to judge how solid the limit really is from this alone. The close observed and expected limits are a positive sign, though. This is for readers focused on Higgs boson couplings and effective field theory constraints in the electroweak sector. It provides one more data point for global fits but won't stand alone as a major result. I recommend sending it for peer review. The claim is straightforward and the channel is novel enough to warrant checking the details.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for associated production of a Higgs boson with two vector bosons (V = W, Z) via vector boson scattering in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions collected by CMS with 138 fb^{-1} of integrated luminosity. Events are selected requiring two forward jets consistent with VBS topology, a large-radius jet from the boosted H → bb decay, and 0, 1, or 2 charged leptons from the vector boson decays. The central result is a 95% CL exclusion of the VVHH coupling modifier κ_VV outside the interval 0.40 < κ_VV < 1.60 (observed) and 0.34 < κ_VV < 1.66 (expected) under the assumption that all other couplings take their Standard Model values. Additional limits are set on the individual modifiers κ_2W and κ_2Z and on the allowed region in the κ_2W–κ_2Z plane.

Significance. If the result holds, the analysis provides the first direct experimental constraint on the VVHH quartic coupling in the VBS channel, offering a novel and complementary probe of the Higgs sector that is sensitive to potential new physics contributions. The use of the VBS topology together with boosted Higgs reconstruction is well-matched to the kinematics of the process and leverages the full Run-2 dataset effectively. The paper clearly states the assumption of SM values for other couplings, making the reported interval conditional but unambiguous. Credit is due for the explicit provision of both observed and expected limits and for extending the constraints to the two-dimensional κ_2W–κ_2Z plane.

minor comments (3)

Abstract: While the exclusion interval is stated clearly, a single sentence summarizing the dominant background estimation technique and the treatment of the leading systematic uncertainties would improve the standalone readability of the abstract without lengthening it appreciably.
Section 5 (Results): The text refers to the 'signal strength' parameterization but does not explicitly cross-reference the definition of the signal strength modifier used in the likelihood fit; adding a brief reminder of its relation to κ_VV would aid readers.
Figure 4: The caption for the two-dimensional limit contour should state the assumed values of the other couplings and the exact confidence level (95% CL) to avoid any ambiguity when the figure is viewed in isolation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our analysis and the recommendation for minor revision. No major comments were raised in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; result is data-driven exclusion limit

full rationale

The paper reports a standard experimental search for VBS-associated HH production in 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV pp data. Event selection, background estimation, and statistical limits on κ_VV (and κ_2W, κ_2Z) are obtained by comparing observed yields in signal regions to Monte Carlo predictions under the stated assumption that all other couplings equal their SM values. No equation or self-citation reduces the reported interval to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does any uniqueness theorem or ansatz from prior author work serve as the load-bearing justification. The explicit conditioning on SM values for other couplings is stated in the abstract and does not create an internal loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The central claim rests on the domain assumption that all couplings except κ_VV are fixed to standard-model values.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Standard-model values for all couplings other than κ_VV, κ_2W, and κ_2Z
Explicitly stated in the abstract as the condition under which the κ_VV interval is derived.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5536 in / 1364 out tokens · 126720 ms · 2026-05-07T17:10:44.703054+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model higgs boson with the atlas detector at the lhc.Physics Letters B2012;716(1):1–29

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard References 9 model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020,arXiv:1207.7214

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 2012
[2]

Phys.Lett

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

work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012
[3]

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

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

work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2013)081 2013
[4]

Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Heinemeyer et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties”, CERN Report CERN-2013-004, 2013. doi:10.5170/CERN-2013-004,arXiv:1307.1347

work page doi:10.5170/cern-2013-004 2013
[5]

10.23731/CYRM-2017-002

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, D. de Florian et al., “Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector”, CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016.doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002,arXiv:1610.07922

work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2017-002 2017
[6]

Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”, 2025.arXiv:2510.07527. Submitted to Journal of Physics G

work page arXiv 2025
[7]

Combination of Searches for Higgs Boson Pair Production in <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math> Collisions at <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>13</mml:mn><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mtext> </mml:mtext><mml:mi>TeV</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> with the ATLAS Detector

ATLAS Collaboration, “Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 101801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.101801,arXiv:2406.09971

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.101801 2024
[8]

Alwall, R

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

work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014
[9]

Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at $$ \sqrt{s} $$ = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Search for Higgs boson pair production with one associated vector boson in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP10(2024) 061, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)061,arXiv:2404.08462

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)061 2024
[10]

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

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008
[11]

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
[12]

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
[13]

The CMS trigger system

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

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017
[14]

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. 10

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/p11021 2024
[15]

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
[16]

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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/p06015 2018
[17]

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
[18]

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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/p10003 2017
[19]

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

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

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/p10005 2018
[20]

Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/p02014 2017
[21]

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
[22]

Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid

CMS Collaboration, “Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid”, CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015

2015
[23]

ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots

CMS Collaboration, “ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020

2016
[24]

Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at √s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 378, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09014-x,arXiv:2011.03652

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09014-x 2021
[25]

Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network

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

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/07/p07023 2022
[26]

Cacciari, G.P

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

work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063 2008
[27]

Cacciari, G.P

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

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012
[28]

Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data

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

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/p09018 2020
[29]

Pileup per particle identification

D. Bertolini, P . Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran, “Pileup per particle identification”,JHEP10 (2014) 059,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)059,arXiv:1407.6013. References 11

work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)059 2014
[30]

Qu and L

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.056019 2020
[31]

Soft drop

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

work page doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)146 2014
[32]

Towards an understanding of jet substructure

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

work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2013)029 2013
[33]

Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.242001 2008
[34]

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

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

work page Pith review doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/p05011 2018
[35]

Jet flavour classification using DeepJet

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

work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/p12012 2020
[36]

Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb −1 of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector

CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb −1 of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2018-058, 2018

2018
[37]

Sj¨ ostrand, S

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

work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 2015
[38]

Cabouat, T

B. Cabouat and T. Sj ¨ostrand, “Some dipole shower studies”,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 226, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5645-z,arXiv:1710.00391

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5645-z 2018
[39]

On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy

O. Mattelaer, “On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 674,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4533-7, arXiv:1607.00763

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4533-7 2016
[40]

A Positive-Weight Next-to-Leading-Order Monte Carlo for Heavy Flavour Hadroproduction

S. Frixione, P . Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,JHEP09(2007) 126, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126,arXiv:0707.3088

work page Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126 2007
[41]

A New Method for Combining NLO QCD with Shower Monte Carlo Algorithms

P . Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,JHEP11(2004) 040,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040 2004
[42]

Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 2007
[43]

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

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

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1007/jhep06(2010)043 2010
[44]

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. 12

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5 2008
[45]

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
[46]

Ball, et al., JHEP04, 040 (2015)

NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,JHEP04(2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040,arXiv:1410.8849

work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)040 2015
[47]

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 Pith review doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5 2017
[48]

GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

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

work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003
[49]

Measurement ofσB(W→eν)andσB(Z 0 →e +e−)in ¯ppcollisions at √s=1800 GeV

CDF Collaboration, “Measurement ofσB(W→eν)andσB(Z 0 →e +e−)in ¯ppcollisions at √s=1800 GeV”,Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 29,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.29

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.44.29 1991
[50]

Automating the ABCD method with machine learning

G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, M. D. Schwartz, and D. Shih, “Automating the ABCD method with machine learning”,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 035021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.035021,arXiv:2007.14400

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.035021 2021
[51]

Review of particle physics

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

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024
[52]

The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE

CMS Collaboration, “The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine”, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8(2024) 19,doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4, arXiv:2404.06614

work page doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4 2024
[53]

The RooFit toolkit for data modeling

W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, “The ROOFITtoolkit for data modeling”, inProc. 13th Int. Conf. on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2003): La Jolla CA, United States, March 24–28, 2003. 2003.arXiv:physics/0306116

work page Pith review arXiv 2003
[54]

The ROOSTATSproject

L. Moneta et al., “The ROOSTATSproject”, inProc. 13th Int. Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis T echniques in Physics Research (ACAT 2010): Jaipur, India, February 22–27, 2010. 2010.arXiv:1009.1003.doi:10.22323/1.093.0057

work page doi:10.22323/1.093.0057 2010
[55]

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

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

work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09538-2 2015
[56]

CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, 2018

2017
[57]

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

CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at√s=13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, 2019

2018
[58]

HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.161535

work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.161535 2026
[59]

Supplemental Material

“Supplemental Material”. [URL will be inserted by publisher]. 13 A End Matter A.1 Event selection This section details the event selections used in each channel before multivariate analyses are performed. In the all-hadronic channels, events of interest are collected using triggers based onH T, with thresholds of 800 or 900 GeV for 2016, and 1050 GeV for ...

2016