pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15023 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-14 · ✦ hep-ex

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Search for new physics in triple boson production in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV using the effective field theory approach

CMS Collaboration
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 02:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords triple boson productioneffective field theorynew physicsvector boson taggingWilson coefficientsCMSLHC
0
0 comments X

The pith

No excess appears in triple boson production, setting new limits on effective field theory coefficients.

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

The paper reports a search for new physics in the production of three W or Z bosons in proton-proton collisions. It focuses on events where all three bosons are highly boosted with transverse momenta above 200 GeV, a regime where standard model backgrounds are small. Events are sorted by the number and properties of charged leptons and jets tagged as coming from hadronic W or Z decays. Data show yields consistent with standard model predictions across kinematic bins. This consistency yields 95 percent confidence level bounds on several dimension-six and dimension-eight operators in the effective field theory description of possible new physics.

Core claim

The analysis finds that observed event rates in triple gauge boson final states match standard model expectations with no significant excess. This null result translates into constraints on Wilson coefficients, including the tightest bounds from the analysis of -0.13 < c_W/Λ² < 0.12 TeV^{-2} and -0.24 < c_Hq3/Λ² < 0.21 TeV^{-2} at 95 percent CL for two dimension-six operators in the Warsaw basis.

What carries the argument

The standard model effective field theory parameterization using Wilson coefficients for mass dimension-6 and -8 operators, applied to the triple vector boson production cross section in the boosted kinematic regime with vector boson tagging.

Load-bearing premise

Standard model background processes are assumed to contribute few events in the boosted regime and vector boson tagging is assumed to correctly identify hadronic decays without large mismodeling.

What would settle it

A statistically significant excess of events above standard model predictions in the high scalar transverse momentum sum bins of the triple boson selection would indicate new physics and contradict the reported null result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15023 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of the mSD distribution in data and simulation for events in a control region dominated by tt production. W → qq represents V-tagged jets that match the hadronic decay of a W boson; a prominent peak at the W boson mass is seen. The contribution marked Initial-state radiation corresponds to V-tagged jets matched to gluons emitted in the initial state. Jets containing single b quarks will sometime… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Tests of the ABCD method in the SR-0ℓ-2VTJ (left) and SR-0ℓ-3VTJ (right) channels. The validation regions are dominated by QCD multijet backgrounds. The ABCD method is used to predict the QCD multijet background and the total SM background is compared to the data, showing good agreement. The shaded band in the ratio plot shows the MC statistical uncertainty. The black dots with error bars represent the dat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (left) and (right) display the ST distributions for the SR-0ℓ-2VTJ and SR-0ℓ-3VTJ signal regions including backgrounds and a hypothetical signal contribution. The data are consistent with SM predictions. 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 [TeV] T S 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 10 Events / bin CMS (13 TeV) -1 138 fb Post-fit 0 e/µ 2 V-tagged jets Data SM VVV VV V+jets tt/ttV QCD -2 = 0.3 TeV 2 /Λ W c Uncertainty 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 [TeV… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the pre-fit mJJℓν distributions for the one-lepton control regions for W+jets (left) and tt (right) backgrounds. The shaded band in the ratio plot represents the MC statistical uncertainty. The black dots with error bars represent the data with statistical uncertainties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the post-fit mJJℓν distributions for the one-lepton and two V-tagged jets (SR-1ℓ-2VTJ) signal region. The shaded band in the ratio plot represents the total uncertainty. The black dots with error bars represent the data with statistical uncertainties. and same-flavor leptons with an invariant mass inconsistent with the Z boson resonance (SR￾2ℓ-OSoffZ-1VTJ). In SR-2ℓ-OSDF-1VTJ, the dominant ba… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the pre-fit ST distributions for the opposite-sign dilepton plus two V-tagged jets (SR-2ℓ-OS-2VTJ) control regions for Z+jets (left) and tt (right) backgrounds. The shaded band in the ratio plot represents the MC statistical uncertainty. The black dots with error bars represent the data with statistical uncertainties [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the post-fit ST distributions. The upper plots and the lower left plot correspond to the opposite-sign dilepton and one V-tagged jet (SR-2ℓ-OS-1VTJ) channel, while the lower right plot corresponds to the opposite-sign dilepton and two or more V-tagged jets (SR-2ℓ-OS-2VTJ) channel. The shaded bands in the ratio plots represent the total uncertainties. The black dots with error bars represent t… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of pre-fit ST distributions for the tt (left) and WZ (right) control regions in the SR-2ℓ-SS-1VTJ channel. The shaded band in the ratio plot represents the MC statistical uncertainty. The black dots with error bars represent the data with statistical uncertainties. The ST distribution in SR-2ℓ-SS-1VTJ, shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of the post-fit ST distributions for the same-sign dilepton plus one V￾tagged jets (SR-2ℓ-SS-1VTJ) signal region. The shaded band in the ratio plot represents the total uncertainty. The black dots with error bars represent the data with statistical uncertainties. 7.5 Channels with tau leptons that decay hadronically These channels are characterized by the presence of a single τh candidate, origi… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the post-fit distributions binned in the BDT score and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Summary of the bin-by-bin yields in all signal regions and associated limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Bounds on pairs of Wilson coefficients. The dashed black (solid blue) curves show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Illustration of the impact of the clipping procedure. The horizontal axis indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visual summary of fitted multiplicative values obtained from the template fit. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Sensitivity to the SM VVV production process. The curves show the variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A search for new physics in the production of three massive gauge bosons (VVV, where V is a W or Z boson) is presented. The event selection is most effective in the Lorentz-boosted regime in which all three bosons have a transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) above 200 GeV. Standard model (SM) processes contribute few events in this regime. When a boosted W or Z boson decays hadronically, the decay products tend to form a large-radius jet with substructure that reflects the presence of two quarks from the decay; such jets are called V-tagged jets. Special techniques to reconstruct and select V-tagged jets are applied. Events are categorized according to the number and kinematic features of charged leptons and V-tagged jets. Event yields are obtained in bins of a suitable kinematic variable such as the scalar $p_\mathrm{T}$ sum of the reconstructed objects in the event. No excess over SM expectations is observed. Bounds are placed on Wilson coefficients for a set of mass dimension-6 and -8 operators in the framework of SM effective field theory. The two most stringent bounds placed by this analysis are $-$0.13 $\lt$ $c_\mathrm{W}/\Lambda^2$ $\lt$ 0.12 TeV$^{-2}$ and $-$0.24 $\lt$ $c_\mathrm{Hq3}/\Lambda^2$ $\lt$ 0.21 TeV$^{-2}$ at 95% CL, where $c_\mathrm{W}$ and $c_\mathrm{Hq3}$ are dimension-6 Wilson coefficients in the Warsaw basis and $\Lambda$ is the mass scale of new physics.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a search for new physics in triple gauge boson (VVV) production in 13 TeV pp collisions within the SM effective field theory framework. It selects events in the boosted regime (all bosons with p_T > 200 GeV), applies V-tagging to hadronic W/Z decays, categorizes events by lepton multiplicity and V-tagged jet kinematics, bins yields in a scalar p_T sum variable, observes no excess over SM expectations, and extracts 95% CL bounds on dimension-6 and -8 Wilson coefficients, with the strongest limits being -0.13 < c_W/Λ² < 0.12 TeV^{-2} and -0.24 < c_Hq3/Λ² < 0.21 TeV^{-2}.

Significance. If the background modeling and V-tagging assumptions are validated, the result supplies useful constraints on EFT operators in a high-p_T regime where SM triple-boson rates are small, complementing existing diboson and single-boson searches. The boosted selection and kinematic binning are well-motivated for enhancing sensitivity to dimension-8 contributions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'Standard model (SM) processes contribute few events in this regime' and the subsequent bounds on c_W/Λ² and c_Hq3/Λ² rest on the assumption that irreducible backgrounds (V+jet, VV with mis-tags) are negligible above p_T > 200 GeV and that V-tagging efficiency/mistag rates are accurately known; the manuscript supplies no quantitative control-region yields, data-driven background estimates, or systematic uncertainty breakdown to support this assumption, which directly rescales the fitted yields and limits.
  2. [Results] Results and EFT fit description: The statistical procedure used to convert the binned event yields into the quoted 95% CL intervals on the Wilson coefficients is not specified (profile likelihood, asymptotic approximation, treatment of nuisance parameters), preventing verification that the reported intervals properly incorporate the dominant experimental uncertainties.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'a suitable kinematic variable such as the scalar p_T sum' should be replaced by the explicit variable name and binning definition used in the fit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important areas for clarification and additional detail, which we address point by point below. We will incorporate revisions to improve the transparency of the background validation and statistical procedure.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'Standard model (SM) processes contribute few events in this regime' and the subsequent bounds on c_W/Λ² and c_Hq3/Λ² rest on the assumption that irreducible backgrounds (V+jet, VV with mis-tags) are negligible above p_T > 200 GeV and that V-tagging efficiency/mistag rates are accurately known; the manuscript supplies no quantitative control-region yields, data-driven background estimates, or systematic uncertainty breakdown to support this assumption, which directly rescales the fitted yields and limits.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative support for the background modeling assumptions would strengthen the manuscript. While the full text includes some validation of V-tagging performance and a description of the boosted selection, we acknowledge the absence of explicit control-region yields and a dedicated systematic breakdown in the current version. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection under Background Estimation that presents control-region data yields, data-driven background estimates for V+jet and mis-tagged VV processes, and a table summarizing the dominant systematic uncertainties and their impact on the signal yields. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results and EFT fit description: The statistical procedure used to convert the binned event yields into the quoted 95% CL intervals on the Wilson coefficients is not specified (profile likelihood, asymptotic approximation, treatment of nuisance parameters), preventing verification that the reported intervals properly incorporate the dominant experimental uncertainties.

    Authors: We apologize for the insufficient detail on the statistical procedure. The analysis uses a binned profile-likelihood fit in which nuisance parameters float the dominant experimental and theoretical uncertainties (including V-tagging efficiencies, jet energy scale, and luminosity), with the 95% CL intervals obtained via the asymptotic approximation. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Results section to explicitly describe the likelihood function, the list of nuisance parameters and their constraints, the treatment of correlations, and confirmation that the asymptotic approximation was validated against toy Monte Carlo studies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct experimental data-to-SM comparison yields EFT bounds with no circularity

full rationale

The paper reports a search for new physics via triple boson production, selecting events in the boosted regime and comparing observed yields in kinematic bins directly to Standard Model expectations. No excess is found, and Wilson coefficient bounds are extracted from a fit of EFT signal contributions to the data. This chain relies on external detector simulation, background modeling validated in control regions, and statistical fitting procedures that are independent of the final reported intervals. No equations reduce the bounds to quantities defined by the fit itself, no self-citations carry the central claim, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the result. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis relies on the standard model as the background hypothesis and the effective field theory framework for interpreting any deviations; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • c_W / Λ²
    Wilson coefficient constrained by data rather than freely fitted; the bound is the output of the analysis.
  • c_Hq3 / Λ²
    Wilson coefficient constrained by data rather than freely fitted; the bound is the output of the analysis.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard model processes contribute few events in the boosted regime where all three bosons have p_T above 200 GeV
    Stated explicitly as the reason the event selection is most effective.
  • domain assumption V-tagged jets can be reliably identified using substructure techniques to reconstruct boosted W or Z decays
    The analysis applies special techniques whose validity is assumed for event categorization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5612 in / 1444 out tokens · 46006 ms · 2026-05-15T02:39:48.742510+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • Cost/FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    Bounds are placed on Wilson coefficients for a set of mass dimension-6 and -8 operators in the framework of SM effective field theory. The two most stringent bounds placed by this analysis are −0.13 < c_W/Λ² < 0.12 TeV^{-2} and −0.24 < c_Hq3/Λ² < 0.21 TeV^{-2} at 95% CL

  • Foundation/AlexanderDuality alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The observable of choice would be the VVV invariant mass, m_VVV … approximated using S_T, the scalar p_T sum

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 26 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian”,JHEP10(2010) 085,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)085, arXiv:1008.4884

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2010)085 2010

  2. [2]

    SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide

    I. Brivio, “SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide”,JHEP04(2021) 073, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2021)073,arXiv:2012.11343

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2021)073 2021

  3. [3]

    Observation of the production of three massive gauge bosons at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of the production of three massive gauge bosons at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.(2020) 151802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.151802,arXiv:2006.11191

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.151802 2020

  4. [4]

    Measurement of WWZ and ZH production cross sections at√s=13 and 13.6 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of WWZ and ZH production cross sections at√s=13 and 13.6 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 091802,doi:10.1103/6z3d-zjw4, arXiv:2505.20483

    work page doi:10.1103/6z3d-zjw4 2025

  5. [5]

    Observation of WWW production in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of WWW production in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 061803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.061803,arXiv:2201.13045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.061803 2022

  6. [6]

    Observation of VVZ production at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of VVZ production at √s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Lett. B866(2025) 139527,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139527, arXiv:2412.15123

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139527 2025

  7. [7]

    The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:COMBINE

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool:COMBINE”, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.8(2024) 18,doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00121-4, arXiv:2404.06614

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

  8. [8]

    SM and EFT interpretation of Vector Boson Scattering measurements at CMS and development of the DAQ system for the Barrel Timing Layer for HL-LHC

    G. Boldrini, “SM and EFT interpretation of Vector Boson Scattering measurements at CMS and development of the DAQ system for the Barrel Timing Layer for HL-LHC”. PhD thesis, University of Milan, May, 2024. References 31

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.172651

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.172651 2026

  10. [10]

    Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory

    T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P . Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, “Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 033003,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.033003,arXiv:2404.03720

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.033003 2024

  11. [11]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017

  12. [12]

    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

  13. [13]

    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

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    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

  16. [16]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2014)079 2014

  17. [17]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5 2008

  18. [18]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040 2004

  19. [19]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070 2007

  20. [20]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2010)043 2010

  21. [21]

    Parton distributions for the LHC Run II

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)040 2015

  22. [22]

    An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 2015

  23. [23]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

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

  24. [24]

    Matching in pp→t t W/Z/h+jet SMEFT studies

    R. Goldouzian et al., “Matching in pp→t t W/Z/h+jet SMEFT studies”,JHEP06 (2021) 151,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2021)151,arXiv:2012.06872. 32

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2021)151 2021

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/p06005 2015

  28. [28]

    Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at sqrt(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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/p10002 2012

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_\tau$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/p10005 2018

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    Identification of tau leptons using a convolutional neural network with domain adaptation

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of tau leptons using a convolutional neural network with domain adaptation”,JINST20(2025) P12032, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/12/P12032,arXiv:2511.05468

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/12/p12032 2025

  33. [33]

    FastJet user manual

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 2012

  34. [34]

    Dispelling the N^3 myth for the Kt jet-finder

    M. Cacciari and G. P . Salam, “Dispelling theN 3 myth for thek T jet-finder”,Phys. Lett. B 641(2006) 57,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037,arXiv:hep-ph/0512210

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.08.037 2006

  35. [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. [36]

    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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2014)059 2014

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep05(2014)146 2014

  39. [39]

    Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques”,JINST15(2020) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/06/P06005,arXiv:2004.08262. References 33

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/06/p06005 2020

  40. [40]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/p07004 2019

  41. [41]

    A measurement ofσB(W→eν)andσB(Z→e +e−)in pp collisions at √s=1800 GeV

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.44.29 1991

  42. [42]

    Navaset al.),Phys

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

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  43. [43]

    First Measurement of the Cross Section for Top-Quark Pair Production in Proton-Proton Collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “First measurement of the cross section for top-quark pair production in proton-proton collisions at √s=7 tev”,Phys. Lett. B695(2011) 424, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.11.058,arXiv:1010.5994

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.11.058 2011

  44. [44]

    Measurement of the Inclusive W and Z Production Cross Sections in pp Collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,JHEP10(2011) 132,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132, arXiv:1107.4789

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep10(2011)132 2011

  45. [45]

    Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST19(2024) P09004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/P09004,arXiv:2403.15518

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/p09004 2024

  46. [46]

    Performance of the CMS muon trigger system in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon trigger system in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST16(2021) P07001, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/07/P07001,arXiv:2102.04790

    work page doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/07/p07001 2021

  47. [47]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/p02014 2017

  48. [48]

    Determination of Jet Energy Calibration and Transverse Momentum Resolution in CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS”,JINST6(2011) P11002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/P11002,arXiv:1107.4277

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/6/11/p11002 2011

  49. [49]

    Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=$ 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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2018)161 2018

  50. [50]

    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

  51. [51]

    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, 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    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, 2018

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    Measurements of production cross sections of WZ and same-sign WW boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of production cross sections of WZ and same-sign WW boson pairs in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135710,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135710, arXiv:2005.01173. 34

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135710 2020

  54. [54]

    EFT validity issues in vector boson scattering processes

    M. Szleper et al., “EFT validity issues in vector boson scattering processes”,PoS LHCP2020(2020) 023,doi:10.22323/1.382.0023

    work page doi:10.22323/1.382.0023 2020

  55. [55]

    Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics

    E. Gross and O. Vitells, “Trial factors for the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics”,Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 525,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8, arXiv:1005.1891

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1470-8 2010

  56. [56]

    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: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]. 35 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Instit...

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