pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27795 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-30 · ✦ hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

Search for light charged Higgs bosons decaying to charm and strange quarks in mathrm{tbar{t}} events in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords charged Higgs bosontop quark decayLHCCMSbranching fractiondijet invariant massproton-proton collisionsHiggs search
0
0 comments X

The pith

No excess is observed in the search for light charged Higgs bosons decaying to charm and strange quarks in top quark pair events.

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

A search is conducted for light charged Higgs bosons in top-antitop pair production where one top quark decays to the Higgs and a bottom quark. The Higgs is assumed to decay to a charm-strange quark pair, and the analysis uses the dijet mass spectrum from the light jets in events with a leptonic W boson decay from the other top. Data from 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV collisions shows yields matching standard model predictions. Upper limits are set on the branching fraction for the top quark decay to charged Higgs and bottom quark, ranging from 0.07 to 1.12 percent at 95 percent confidence level assuming full decay to charm and strange quarks. These provide the first direct limits for masses 40 to 50 GeV and the tightest constraints in the 70 to 110 GeV window.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the data is consistent with standard model predictions, with no evidence for a charged Higgs boson signal. This allows the placement of 95% confidence level upper limits on the branching fraction B(t → H± b) in the range 0.07-1.12% for H± masses between 40 and 160 GeV, under the assumption that the Higgs decays exclusively to charm and strange quarks. These limits are the first direct ones for the lowest mass range and the most stringent for the intermediate masses.

What carries the argument

The invariant mass of the pair of light jets, defined as jets not passing b-tagging criteria, serves as the discriminating variable to search for a peak from H± → cs decays in semi-leptonic ttbar events.

If this is right

  • Charged Higgs bosons with masses 40-160 GeV and dominant decay to cs are excluded from having branching fractions above the quoted limits in top quark decays.
  • The standard model description of top quark pair production and decay is confirmed in this specific final state.
  • These results can be interpreted within two-Higgs-doublet models to limit the parameter space for light charged Higgs particles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Reinterpretation in specific beyond-standard-model scenarios could yield more model-dependent constraints on Higgs sector parameters.
  • Future improvements in charm jet tagging could allow direct searches for the cs decay mode without relying on the 100% assumption.
  • Similar techniques might be used to search for other light new particles in top decays.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the charged Higgs boson decays 100 percent of the time into a charm and a strange quark, combined with the accurate modeling of all backgrounds and signal efficiencies by the Monte Carlo simulations and data-driven methods.

What would settle it

Observing a clear peak or statistically significant excess in the light dijet invariant mass spectrum at the tested Higgs mass value, after subtracting the expected background, would falsify the no-signal hypothesis and support the existence of the charged Higgs boson.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27795 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Leading-order Feynman diagrams of tt production in gluon-gluon fusion process. One possible production of H± signal from t quark decay is shown in the left plot. The decay products of H± are c and s quarks. The diagram on right side shows the tt process in the lepton+jets channels, an irreducible SM background. In the following section, we describe the detector components of CMS utilized in this study. The… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of selected input variables used in the BDT training for the combined view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: BDT output score distribution for the backgrounds and signal processes for the (left) view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Post-fit event yields of the BDT categories after the background-only fit. The lower view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The post-fit mjj distributions for data and background processes in loose, medium and tight BDT categories are shown for combined data set. The mjj variable is defined as the invariant mass of the two light jets associated with the W/H± candidate. The potential signal distribution normalized to B(t → H±b) = 10% is also overlaid for comparison. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the predicted bac… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the branching fraction view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A search is presented for a light charged Higgs boson H$^\pm$ in top quark pair production ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$), where one of the top quarks decays to an H$^\pm$ and a bottom quark, while the other decays to a W$^\mp$ boson and a bottom quark. The H$^\pm$ is assumed to decay into a charm and a strange quark, whereas the W$^\mp$ boson decays into a charged lepton (electron or muon) and a neutrino. Results are reported based on proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The analysis probes H$^\pm$ masses in the range 40 to 160 GeV using the invariant mass spectrum of the two light jets, where light jets are defined as jets that do not satisfy the bottom quark tagging requirement. The observed yield is found to be consistent with standard model predictions. Upper limits are set on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}$(t $\to$ H$^\pm$ b), with values in the range of 0.07$-$1.12% at 95% confidence level, under the assumption that $\mathcal{B}$(H$^\pm$ $\to$ cs) = 100%. These are the first direct limits on charged Higgs bosons produced in top quark decays for masses between 40 and 50 GeV, and the most stringent limits to date in the 70$-$110 GeV range.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a search for light charged Higgs bosons H± (masses 40–160 GeV) produced in top-quark decays within ttbar events using 138 fb⁻¹ of 13 TeV pp collision data recorded by CMS. One top decays as t → H± b with H± → cs (assumed 100% branching fraction), while the other decays as t → W b with W → ℓν. The analysis selects the lepton + jets + single b-tag final state and extracts limits from a fit to the dijet invariant-mass spectrum of the two non-b-tagged jets. No significant excess above standard-model expectations is observed, yielding 95% CL upper limits on B(t → H± b) in the range 0.07–1.12%. The paper claims these are the first direct limits in the 40–50 GeV interval and the most stringent to date in the 70–110 GeV interval.

Significance. If the background modeling and systematic uncertainties are robustly validated, the result supplies competitive constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models containing light charged Higgs bosons, extending coverage to previously unprobed low-mass values with the full Run-2 dataset. The analysis employs a standard invariant-mass fit and limit-setting procedure typical of CMS searches; the central claim of consistency with the Standard Model is plausible given the described methodology. The explicit assumption B(H± → cs) = 100% is clearly stated, and the limits are presented as a function of mass, allowing straightforward reinterpretation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5] Section 5 (background estimation): The dominant ttbar background shape in the dijet mass spectrum is taken from simulation. Because the signal appears as a peak on the combinatorial + W → qq' continuum, any mismatch in the modeling of light-quark fragmentation, parton-shower, or detector response for c/s jets versus u/d/g jets (or in the b-tagging mistag rate) directly biases the background template in the 40–160 GeV window. This modeling uncertainty is load-bearing for the claimed first limits at 40–50 GeV and most stringent limits at 70–110 GeV; the manuscript must quantify the residual shape uncertainty after any data-driven corrections and demonstrate that it does not inflate the reported sensitivity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (dijet mass distributions): The ratio panels should explicitly label the total uncertainty band and indicate which mass hypotheses are overlaid; the current presentation makes it difficult to assess the goodness of fit in the low-mass region.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 (systematic uncertainties): The table lists individual sources but does not show the quadrature sum or the impact on the final limit; adding a column with the total systematic uncertainty per mass point would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the insightful comments on the background estimation. We have prepared a detailed response to the major comment and will update the manuscript to incorporate additional documentation and quantification of the relevant uncertainties as outlined below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section 5] Section 5 (background estimation): The dominant ttbar background shape in the dijet mass spectrum is taken from simulation. Because the signal appears as a peak on the combinatorial + W → qq' continuum, any mismatch in the modeling of light-quark fragmentation, parton-shower, or detector response for c/s jets versus u/d/g jets (or in the b-tagging mistag rate) directly biases the background template in the 40–160 GeV window. This modeling uncertainty is load-bearing for the claimed first limits at 40–50 GeV and most stringent limits at 70–110 GeV; the manuscript must quantify the residual shape uncertainty after any data-driven corrections and demonstrate that it does not inflate the reported sensitivity.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the modeling of the ttbar background shape is critical to the analysis, especially given the signal's appearance as a peak in the dijet mass spectrum. The manuscript employs simulated ttbar events for the background template, with systematic uncertainties included for jet energy corrections, parton shower variations, and b-tagging efficiencies. Data-driven validation is performed in control regions where the dijet mass distribution shows consistency between data and simulation within uncertainties. To further quantify the residual shape uncertainty due to light-quark fragmentation and differences in c/s versus u/d/g jets, we will add a new systematic variation by comparing simulations with different hadronization models and by applying dedicated reweighting for charm and strange quark fragmentation. The resulting shape uncertainty will be incorporated into the likelihood fit, and its impact on the limits will be explicitly shown. A revised version of Section 5 will include this discussion, along with an additional figure illustrating the background shape variations. This ensures that the reported limits account for these effects and do not overstate the sensitivity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental limit extraction from collision data

full rationale

This is a standard CMS experimental search paper that selects events in lepton+jets final states from 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV data, reconstructs the dijet mass of non-b-tagged jets, and extracts 95% CL upper limits on B(t→H±b) via a statistical fit to the observed spectrum under the explicit assumption B(H±→cs)=100%. The background model (primarily ttbar) is taken from simulation normalized in control regions, with no derivation step that reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain. The central result (observed limits 0.07–1.12%) is directly falsifiable against the recorded data and is not equivalent to any input by definition. Minor self-citations to prior CMS detector performance papers exist but are not load-bearing for the limit values themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard model background predictions and detector modeling assumptions typical for LHC searches. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the result is a limit on an existing predicted particle.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard model predictions accurately describe the background processes in ttbar events with one leptonic W decay.
    The analysis compares observed yields to SM expectations to claim consistency and set limits.
  • domain assumption Jet reconstruction, b-tagging, and light-jet identification efficiencies are correctly modeled in simulation.
    Used to define signal and background regions and calculate acceptance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5595 in / 1483 out tokens · 69073 ms · 2026-05-07T05:19:32.911835+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

71 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [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 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. [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. [3]

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis References 17 of the LHC pp collision data at √s=7 and 8 TeV”,JHEP08(2016) 045, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)045,arXiv:1606.02266

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2016)045 2016

  4. [4]

    A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation

    T. D. Lee, “A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation”,Phys. Rev. D8(1973) 1226, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226,arXiv:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.8.1226 1973

  5. [5]

    Models of Yukawa interaction in the two Higgs doublet model, and their collider phenomenology

    M. Aoki, S. Kanemura, K. Tsumura, and K. Yagyu, “Models of Yukawa interaction in the two Higgs doublet model, and their collider phenomenology”,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 015017,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.015017,arXiv:0902.4665

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.015017 2009

  6. [6]

    Collider signatures of flavorful Higgs bosons

    W. Altmannshofer et al., “Collider signatures of flavorful Higgs bosons”,Phys. Rev. D 94(2016) 115032,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.115032,arXiv:1610.02398

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.115032 2016

  7. [7]

    Search for the Standard Model Higgs boson at LEP

    LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Collaborations, “Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP”,Phys. Lett. B565 (2003) 61,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00614-2,arXiv:hep-ex/0306033

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(03)00614-2 2003

  8. [8]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons in e +e− collisions at energies up to √s=209 GeV

    ALEPH Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons in e +e− collisions at energies up to √s=209 GeV”,Phys. Lett. B543(2002) 1, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)02380-8,arXiv:hep-ex/0207054

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(02)02380-8 2002

  9. [9]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP

    L3 Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP”,Phys. Lett. B575(2003) 208, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.09.057,arXiv:hep-ex/0309056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.09.057 2003

  10. [10]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP in general two Higgs doublet models

    DELPHI Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons at LEP in general two Higgs doublet models”,Eur. Phys. J. C34(2004) 399,doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-01732-6, arXiv:hep-ex/0404012

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-01732-6 2004

  11. [11]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons in e +e− collisions at√s=189–209 GeV

    OPAL Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons in e +e− collisions at√s=189–209 GeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2076, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2076-0,arXiv:0812.0267

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2076-0 2012

  12. [12]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons: Combined results using LEP data

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations and LEP working group on Higgs boson searches, “Search for charged Higgs bosons: Combined results using LEP data”,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2463,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2463-1, arXiv:1301.6065

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2463-1 2013

  13. [13]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons in top quark decays

    D0 Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons in top quark decays”,Phys. Lett. B 682(2009) 278,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.11.016,arXiv:0908.1811

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.11.016 2009

  14. [14]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons in decays of top quarks in p p collisions at √s= 1.96 TeV

    CDF Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons in decays of top quarks in p p collisions at √s= 1.96 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.103(2009) 101803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.101803,arXiv:0907.1269

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.101803 2009

  15. [15]

    10.23731/CYRM-2017-002

    LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration, “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector”, 10, 2016. arXiv:1610.07922. CERN Yellow Report,doi:10.23731/CYRM-2017-002

    work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2017-002 2016

  16. [16]

    Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the decay channel H+ →c s in t t events using pp collisions at √s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the decay channel H+ →c s in t t events using pp collisions at √s=7 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2465,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2465-z, arXiv:1302.3694. 18

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2465-z 2013

  17. [17]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying viaH ± →τ ±νin fully hadronic final states using pp collision data at √s=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying viaH ± →τ ±νin fully hadronic final states using pp collision data at √s=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP03(2015) 088,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2015)088,arXiv:1412.6663

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2015)088 2015

  18. [18]

    Search for a light charged Higgs boson decaying to c s in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for a light charged Higgs boson decaying to c s in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,JHEP12(2015) 178,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)178, arXiv:1510.04252

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2015)178 2015

  19. [19]

    Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the H ± →cs channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for a light charged Higgs boson in the H ± →cs channel in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 072001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.072001,arXiv:2005.08900

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.072001 2020

  20. [20]

    Search for a light charged Higgs boson in t→H ±b decays, with H± →cs, in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for a light charged Higgs boson in t→H ±b decays, with H± →cs, in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C85 (2025) 112,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13715-4,arXiv:2407.10096

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13715-4 2025

  21. [21]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.167415

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.167415 2026

  22. [22]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2003) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004,arXiv:0803.2024

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2003

  23. [23]

    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

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

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    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

  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]

    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

  31. [31]

    Review of Particle Physics

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, “Review of Particle Physics”,PTEP2024(2024) 083C01,doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae084. References 19

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae084 2024

  32. [32]

    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

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    Measurement of the inclusive and differential t tγcross sections in the single-lepton channel and EFT interpretation at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive and differential t tγcross sections in the single-lepton channel and EFT interpretation at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP12(2021) 180, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)180,arXiv:2107.01508

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2021)180 2021

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions”,JHEP01(2007) 013, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013,arXiv:hep-ph/0611129

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/01/013 2007

  39. [39]

    Frederix and S

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

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2012)061 2012

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP07(2018) 161,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161,arXiv:1802.02613

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2018)161 2018

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

    Reconstruction of electrons with the Gaussian-sum filter in the CMS tracker at the LHC

    W. Adam, R. Fr ¨uhwirth, A. Strandlie, and T. Todorov, “Reconstruction of Electrons with the Gaussian-Sum Filter in the CMS Tracker at the LHC”,J. Phys. G31(2005) N9, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/9/N01,arXiv:physics/0301087

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/31/9/n01 2005

  46. [46]

    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. 20

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

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

    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

  50. [50]

    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

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “A new calibration method for charm jet identification validated with proton-proton collision events at √s= 13 TeV”,JINST17(2022) P03014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/03/P03014,arXiv:2111.03027

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/03/p03014 2022

  53. [53]

    Muon Reconstruction and Identification Performance with Run-2 data

    CMS Collaboration, “Muon Reconstruction and Identification Performance with Run-2 data”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-040, 2020

    2020

  54. [54]

    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

  55. [55]

    Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching ratio ofBmesons and determination of|V ub|

    BaBar Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching ratio ofBmesons and determination of|V ub|”,Phys. Rev. Lett.92(2004) 071802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.071802,arXiv:hep-ex/0307062

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.071802 2004

  56. [56]

    Determination of the branching fraction forB→X cℓνdecays and of|V cb|from hadronic mass and lepton energy moments

    BaBar Collaboration, “Determination of the branching fraction forB→X cℓνdecays and of|V cb|from hadronic mass and lepton energy moments”,Phys. Rev. Lett.93(2004) 011803,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.011803,arXiv:hep-ex/0404017

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.011803 2004

  57. [57]

    Fitting of event topologies with external kinematic constraints in CMS

    J. D’Hondt et al., “Fitting of event topologies with external kinematic constraints in CMS”, CMS Note 2006/023, 2006

    2006

  58. [58]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

    F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python”,J. Machine Learning Res. 12(2011) 2825,doi:10.48550/arXiv.1201.0490,arXiv:1201.0490

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 2011

  59. [59]

    A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection

    R. Kohavi, “A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection”, inProceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p. 1137. 1995

    1995

  60. [60]

    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

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    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. References 21

    2018

  63. [63]

    Butterworth, S

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

    work page doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001 2016

  64. [64]

    Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune

    P . Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3024,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y 2013

  65. [65]

    Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of tt at √s=8 and 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of tt at √s=8 and 13 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021, 2016

    2016

  66. [66]

    Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples

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

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

  67. [67]

    Confidence Level Computation for Combining Searches with Small Statistics

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

    work page Pith review doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(99)00498-2 1999

  68. [68]

    Presentation of search results: the CL s technique

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

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

  69. [69]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1554, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0,arXiv:1007.1727. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z]

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 2011

  70. [70]

    Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011”, Technical Report ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS NOTE 2011/005, 2011

    2011

  71. [71]

    Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra

    J. S. Conway, “Incorporating Nuisance Parameters in Likelihoods for Multisource Spectra”, inProceedings of the PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop, p. 115. 2011. arXiv:1103.0354.doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-006.115. 22 23 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, ...

    work page doi:10.5170/cern-2011-006.115 2011