pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16655 · v1 · pith:NRK2KR5Ynew · submitted 2026-05-15 · ✦ hep-ex

Search for the nonresonant production of a pair of additional Higgs bosons in the Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 20:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex
keywords Higgs boson pairstwo-Higgs-doublet modelType-Xtau leptonsnonresonant productionCMS detectormuon anomalous magnetic moment
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:NRK2KR5Y Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{NRK2KR5Y}

Prints a linked pith:NRK2KR5Y badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

The search finds no excess over standard model background in tau lepton pairs, excluding the Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model as an explanation for the muon anomalous magnetic moment discrepancy.

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 pairs of additional Higgs bosons produced nonresonantly from an off-shell Z boson, with both decaying to tau lepton pairs. Using proton-proton collision data at 13 TeV corresponding to 138 inverse femtobarns, no deviation from expected background is observed. Exclusion limits are placed on the alignment scenario of the Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model. This rules out the model as a possible resolution to the difference between measured and predicted values of the muon magnetic moment. A sympathetic reader would care because it narrows down possible extensions of the standard model that could address this longstanding anomaly.

Core claim

No deviation from the standard model background is observed in the search for nonresonant production of two additional Higgs bosons decaying to tau pairs. Exclusion limits are set on the Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model alignment scenario, ruling out this model as an explanation for the potential tension in the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

What carries the argument

The nonresonant production of a pair of additional Higgs bosons via an off-shell Z boson in the Type-X 2HDM, with both decaying to tau lepton pairs, used to set exclusion limits.

If this is right

  • The Type-X 2HDM alignment scenario cannot explain the muon g-2 anomaly.
  • New physics explanations for the muon magnetic moment discrepancy must lie outside this model.
  • Future collider searches can target other 2HDM scenarios or different final states.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Other models, such as supersymmetric extensions or different Higgs sectors, may need to be considered to address the g-2 tension.
  • With more data at higher energies, similar searches could further constrain parameter spaces in extended Higgs models.
  • Precision measurements of tau decays or other observables might provide complementary tests.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that standard model background processes are accurately modeled in simulation and that signal acceptance and efficiency are correctly estimated for the tau-pair final state.

What would settle it

A significant excess of events in the signal region beyond the predicted background and uncertainties would indicate the presence of the signal and challenge the exclusion of the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16655 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Feynman diagram for the production of two BSM neutral Higgs bosons from an off [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of the discriminating variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the cross section ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed and expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the Type-X 2HDM alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed 95% CL exclusions of the Type-X 2HDM alignment scenario in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A search is presented for the production of two additional Higgs bosons from an off-shell Z boson, where both additional particles decay to $\tau$ lepton pairs. The search is performed with a data sample collected with the CMS detector from proton-proton collisions at the LHC at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. No deviation from the standard model background is observed. Exclusion limits are set on the Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model alignment scenario. These results rule out this model as an explanation to the potential tension between the experimental and theoretical values of the muon anomalous magnetic moment.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a search for nonresonant production of a pair of additional Higgs bosons H and A in the Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model via an off-shell Z boson, with both decaying to τ lepton pairs. Using 138 fb^{-1} of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected with the CMS detector, no significant excess over Standard Model backgrounds is observed. Exclusion limits are placed on the model parameters in the alignment limit, and the results are interpreted as ruling out the Type-X 2HDM as an explanation for the muon anomalous magnetic moment discrepancy.

Significance. If the exclusion limits are shown to fully cover the (m_A, tan β) region preferred by the muon g-2 anomaly, the result would be significant: it would eliminate one of the more widely discussed beyond-Standard-Model explanations for the observed tension in a_μ. The analysis adds a direct LHC constraint in the 4τ final state that complements indirect bounds from precision measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results/Interpretation section] The central claim that the search rules out the Type-X 2HDM explanation for Δa_μ ≈ (2.5–3.0)×10^{-9} requires explicit verification that the excluded region fully covers the g-2-preferred band. The manuscript should overlay the 1–2σ g-2 contour on the (m_A, tan β) exclusion plot (likely in the results or interpretation section) and quantify any remaining viable sliver after accounting for theoretical uncertainties on the nonresonant cross section.
  2. [Signal modeling section] The weakest assumption is the modeling of signal acceptance and efficiency for the 4τ final state across m_A, m_H ~ 80–300 GeV. The paper should provide a dedicated validation (e.g., Table or Figure in the signal modeling section) showing that the efficiency is stable and that the quoted upper limits remain robust when efficiency is varied within its uncertainty.
  3. [Background estimation section] Background modeling (ZZ, Z+jets with fake τ, tt̄) is critical for the observed limit strength. The manuscript should demonstrate in the background estimation section that the simulation accurately reproduces the data in control regions, with a quantitative assessment of the impact on the final exclusion if the background normalization is shifted by its systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the results 'rule out this model' without qualifying the coverage of the g-2 region; a more precise phrasing would improve clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the integrated luminosity and center-of-mass energy for each plot to allow quick reference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to address all major comments, improving the clarity of our results and the robustness of our analysis. Below we provide detailed responses to each point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results/Interpretation section] The central claim that the search rules out the Type-X 2HDM explanation for Δa_μ ≈ (2.5–3.0)×10^{-9} requires explicit verification that the excluded region fully covers the g-2-preferred band. The manuscript should overlay the 1–2σ g-2 contour on the (m_A, tan β) exclusion plot (likely in the results or interpretation section) and quantify any remaining viable sliver after accounting for theoretical uncertainties on the nonresonant cross section.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that an explicit overlay of the g-2 contours will better support our interpretation. In the revised manuscript, we have added the 1σ and 2σ preferred regions from the muon anomalous magnetic moment to the exclusion plot in the results section. The updated figure demonstrates that our exclusion limits fully cover the 1–2σ g-2 preferred region, with no viable parameter space remaining even after including theoretical uncertainties of 10% on the cross section. This strengthens our conclusion that the Type-X 2HDM is ruled out as an explanation for the muon g-2 anomaly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Signal modeling section] The weakest assumption is the modeling of signal acceptance and efficiency for the 4τ final state across m_A, m_H ~ 80–300 GeV. The paper should provide a dedicated validation (e.g., Table or Figure in the signal modeling section) showing that the efficiency is stable and that the quoted upper limits remain robust when efficiency is varied within its uncertainty.

    Authors: We have added a new table in the signal modeling section (Table 3) presenting the signal acceptance and efficiency for representative mass points across the range m_A = 80–300 GeV. The efficiency is found to be stable, varying between 2.5% and 3.2% with no strong dependence on mass or tan β. To assess robustness, we varied the efficiency by its estimated uncertainty of ±7% and re-derived the limits; the observed upper limits change by less than 10%, confirming that the exclusion of the g-2 region remains robust. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Background estimation section] Background modeling (ZZ, Z+jets with fake τ, tt̄) is critical for the observed limit strength. The manuscript should demonstrate in the background estimation section that the simulation accurately reproduces the data in control regions, with a quantitative assessment of the impact on the final exclusion if the background normalization is shifted by its systematic uncertainty.

    Authors: We have enhanced the background estimation section with additional plots comparing data and Monte Carlo simulation in dedicated control regions for ZZ, Z+jets, and tt̄ processes. The data-simulation agreement is good, with discrepancies below 8% in the control regions. We have also included a quantitative study showing that shifting the background normalizations by their systematic uncertainties (ranging from 5% to 20%) results in variations of the final exclusion limits by at most 15%. This does not alter the conclusion that the Type-X 2HDM explanation for the muon g-2 anomaly is excluded. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct data-driven exclusion limits on external model

full rationale

The paper reports a standard LHC search that compares observed 4τ events in 138 fb⁻¹ of 13 TeV data against Monte Carlo simulations of SM backgrounds and Type-X 2HDM signal. Exclusion limits on the (m_A, tanβ) plane are obtained from the lack of excess; these limits are then compared to an externally calculated g-2 preferred region. No parameter is fitted to the observed data and then re-used as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and the central result does not reduce to a redefinition of its own inputs. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The exclusion relies on the validity of background modeling and signal modeling assumptions typical in high-energy physics searches.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Standard model processes accurately describe the background in the selected final state
    The no-excess conclusion and subsequent limits depend on correct prediction of SM contributions.
  • domain assumption The Type-X 2HDM alignment scenario is correctly implemented in the signal simulation
    Limits are set assuming the model's predictions for production and decay.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5648 in / 1488 out tokens · 53914 ms · 2026-05-19T20:28:09.882668+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.

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

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 38 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, “Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL”,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 072003, References 9 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.072003,arXiv:hep-ex/0602035

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.072003 2006

  2. [2]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm”,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 141801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801,arXiv:2104.03281

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.141801 2021

  3. [3]

    Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, “Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 161802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802,arXiv:2308.06230

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.161802 2023

  4. [4]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model

    T. Aoyama et al., “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model”,Phys. Rept.887(2020) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006, arXiv:2006.04822

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006 2020

  5. [5]

    Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD

    S. Borsanyi et al., “Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD”,Nature593(2021) 51,doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1, arXiv:2002.12347

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1 2021

  6. [6]

    Higgs Boson Theory and Phenomenology

    M. Carena and H. E. Haber, “Higgs Boson Theory and Phenomenology”,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.50(2003) 63,doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(02)00177-1, arXiv:hep-ph/0208209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0146-6410(02)00177-1 2003

  7. [7]

    New Barr-Zee contributions to $\mathbf{(g-2)_\mu}$ in two-Higgs-doublet models

    V . Ilisie, “New Barr-Zee contributions to (g-2)µ in two-Higgs-doublet models”,JHEP04 (2015) 077,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)077,arXiv:1502.04199

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)077 2015

  8. [8]

    Revisiting a generalized two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the muon anomaly and lepton flavor violating decays at the HL-LHC

    N. Ghosh and J. Lahiri, “Revisiting a generalized two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the muon anomaly and lepton flavor violating decays at the HL-LHC”,Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 055009,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.055009,arXiv:2010.03590

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.055009 2021

  9. [9]

    Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the muon g-2: Confronting Higgs boson and collider data

    A. Jueid, J. Kim, S. Lee, and J. Song, “Type-X two-Higgs-doublet model in light of the muon g-2: Confronting Higgs boson and collider data”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 095008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.095008,arXiv:2104.10175

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.095008 2021

  10. [10]

    (g-2)µin the 2HDM and slightly beyond: An updated view

    P . M. Ferreira, B. L. Gonc ¸alves, F. R. Joaquim, and M. Sher, “(g-2)µin the 2HDM and slightly beyond: An updated view”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 053008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.053008,arXiv:2104.03367

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.053008 2021

  11. [11]

    Lepton-Specific Two Higgs Doublet Model as a Solution of Muon $g-2$ Anomaly

    T. Abe, R. Sato, and K. Yagyu, “Lepton-specific two Higgs doublet model as a solution of muon g-2 anomaly”,JHEP07(2015) 064,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2015)064, arXiv:1504.07059

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2015)064 2015

  12. [12]

    Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models

    A. Broggio et al., “Limiting two-Higgs-doublet models”,JHEP11(2014) 058, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2014)058,arXiv:1409.3199

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2014)058 2014

  13. [13]

    LHC $\tau$-rich Tests of Lepton-specific 2HDM for $(g-2)_\mu$

    E. J. Chun, Z. Kang, M. Takeuchi, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, “LHCτ-rich tests of lepton-specific 2HDM for (g-2)µ”,JHEP11(2015) 099,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)099, arXiv:1507.08067

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep11(2015)099 2015

  14. [14]

    Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models

    G. C. Branco et al., “Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models”,Phys. Rept.516(2012) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002,arXiv:1106.0034

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002 2012

  15. [15]

    Impersonating the Standard Model Higgs Boson: Alignment without Decoupling

    M. Carena, I. Low, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Impersonating the Standard Model Higgs Boson: Alignment without Decoupling”,JHEP04(2014) 015, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)015,arXiv:1310.2248. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep04(2014)015 2014

  16. [16]

    Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino

    P . Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino”,Nucl. Phys. B90(1975) 104, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7 1975

  17. [17]

    Spontaneously broken supersymmetric theories of weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions

    P . Fayet, “Spontaneously broken supersymmetric theories of weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions”,Phys. Lett. B69(1977) 489, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90852-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90852-8 1977

  18. [18]

    Searches for additional Higgs bosons and for vector leptoquarks in ττfinal states in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Searches for additional Higgs bosons and for vector leptoquarks in ττfinal states in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,JHEP07(2023) 073, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)073,arXiv:2208.02717

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2023)073 2023

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    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

    work page 2017

  21. [21]

    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

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.166016

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.166016 2026

  23. [23]

    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

  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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/p10009 2014

  30. [30]

    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. References 11

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

  31. [31]

    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

  32. [32]

    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

  33. [33]

    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

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/p05011 2018

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    Measurement of the $\mathrm{Z}\gamma^{*} \to \tau\tau$ cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV and validation of $\tau$ lepton analysis techniques

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Zγ ∗ →ττcross section in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV and validation ofτlepton analysis techniques”,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 708,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6146-9,arXiv:1801.03535

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6146-9 2018

  38. [38]

    Reweighting with Boosted Decision Trees

    A. Rogozhnikov, “Reweighting with Boosted Decision Trees”,J. Phys. Conf. Ser.762 (2016) 012036,doi:10.1088/1742-6596/762/1/012036,arXiv:1608.05806

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1742-6596/762/1/012036 2016

  39. [39]

    MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond

    J. Alwall et al., “MadGraph 5: Going beyond”,JHEP06(2011) 128, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2011)128,arXiv:1106.0522

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep06(2011)128 2011

  40. [40]

    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

  41. [41]

    Merging meets matching in MC@NLO

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2012)061 2012

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering

    S. Alioli, S.-O. Moch, and P . Uwer, “Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering”,JHEP01(2012) 137,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2012)137, arXiv:1110.5251

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep01(2012)137 2012

  44. [44]

    Single-top t-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO

    R. Frederix, E. Re, and P . Torrielli, “Single-topt-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO”,JHEP09(2012) 130, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130,arXiv:1207.5391

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2012)130 2012

  45. [45]

    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. 12

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

  46. [46]

    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

  47. [47]

    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

  48. [48]

    On the Treatment of Resonances in Next-to-Leading Order Calculations Matched to a Parton Shower

    T. Je ˇzo and P . Nason, “On the treatment of resonances in next-to-leading order calculations matched to a parton shower”,JHEP12(2015) 065, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)065,arXiv:1509.09071

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2015)065 2015

  49. [49]

    Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through O(alpha_s^2)

    K. Melnikov and F. Petriello, “Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders throughO(α 2 s )”,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 114017,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114017, arXiv:hep-ph/0609070

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.114017 2006

  50. [50]

    Top++: a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders”,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2930, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021,arXiv:1112.5675

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021 2014

  51. [51]

    Top Quark Production

    N. Kidonakis, “Top quark production”, inProc. Helmholtz International Summer School on Physics of Heavy Quarks and Hadrons, p. 139. 2014.arXiv:1311.0283. doi:10.3204/DESY-PROC-2013-03/Kidonakis

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3204/desy-proc-2013-03/kidonakis 2014

  52. [52]

    Vector boson pair production at the LHC

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams, “Vector boson pair production at the LHC”, JHEP07(2011) 018,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)018,arXiv:1105.0020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2011)018 2011

  53. [53]

    $W^+W^-$ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD

    T. Gehrmann et al., “W +W− production at hadron colliders in next to next to leading order QCD”,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 212001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.212001,arXiv:1408.5243

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.212001 2014

  54. [54]

    Measurements of production cross sections of the Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state in proton–proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of production cross sections of the Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state in proton–proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) 488,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09200-x,arXiv:2103.04956

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09200-x 2021

  55. [55]

    2HDECAY – A program for the calculation of electroweak one-loop corrections to Higgs decays in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model including state-of-the-art QCD corrections

    M. Krause, M. M ¨uhlleitner, and M. Spira, “2HDECAY – A program for the calculation of electroweak one-loop corrections to Higgs decays in the Two-Higgs-Doublet Model including state-of-the-art QCD corrections”,Comput. Phys. Commun.246(2020) 106852, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.08.003,arXiv:1810.00768

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.08.003 2020

  56. [56]

    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

  57. [57]

    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

  58. [58]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

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

  59. [59]

    Geant4 – a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8. References 13

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

  60. [60]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,JHEP01(2011) 080,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)080, arXiv:1012.2466

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep01(2011)080 2011

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    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

  63. [63]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0 2011

  64. [64]

    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 internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(99)00498-2 1999

  65. [65]

    Presentation of search results: The CL s technique

    A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: The CL 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

  66. [66]

    HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals

    H. Bahl et al., “HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and HiggsSignals”,Comput. Phys. Commun.291(2023) 108803, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108803,arXiv:2210.09332. 14 15 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria W. Adam , J...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108803 2023