Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Photon-fusion tau pairs in PbPb collisions bound the tau's anomalous magnetic moment to -0.039 < a_tau < 0.032.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 10:38 UTC pith:HTYKXYZU

load-bearing objection Solid CMS update: most precise gamma-gamma to tau-tau cross section and an improved but not leading a_tau limit; the a_tau interval's dependence on the UPCGEN curve needs a proper profile-likelihood justification. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20148 v1 pith:HTYKXYZU submitted 2026-07-22 nucl-ex hep-ex

Measurement of the γγ to τ τ cross section and constraints on the anomalous magnetic moment of the τ lepton in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 5.02 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-ex
keywords gamma-gamma fusiontau anomalous magnetic momentultraperipheral collisionsPbPb collisionstau pair productionCMS experimentfiducial cross sectionNLO QED
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper establishes that ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions — where two quasireal photons emitted by intact lead nuclei fuse into a tau pair — can serve as a precision probe of the tau lepton's anomalous magnetic moment, a_tau = (g-2)/2. A simultaneous likelihood fit to lepton transverse-momentum spectra in four tau-decay final states reports a 95% confidence interval -0.039 < a_tau < 0.032, a bound three times tighter than the previous lead-lead measurement and comparable to LEP and ATLAS results, in a low-invariant-mass regime complementary to proton-proton collisions. The same fit measures the fiducial gamma-gamma to tau tau cross section, 555 +60 -14 microbarns, the most precise such measurement at the LHC, and finds it consistent with next-to-leading-order QED predictions. A sympathetic reader would care because a_tau is hard to measure directly for the short-lived tau, and this work shows that heavy-ion photon fusion can reach the sensitivity of electron-positron colliders while also validating NLO QED calculations in a new regime.

Core claim

The central claim is that the production of tau lepton pairs via photon-photon fusion in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV, analyzed through four decay channels (mu+1-prong, mu+3-prong, mu+e, e+3-prong) in a simultaneous binned likelihood fit to the decay-lepton pT distributions, yields a 95% CL interval on the tau anomalous magnetic moment of -0.039 < a_tau < 0.032 and a fiducial cross section of 555 +60 -14 microbarns for tau pT > 1 GeV and |eta| < 3. The cross section is the most precise measurement of this process at the LHC and agrees with next-to-leading-order QED predictions; the a_tau interval improves on the previous PbPb result by more than a factor of three and reaches s

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a binned profile-likelihood fit that uses both the shape and normalization of the decay-lepton pT distributions from four tau final states. Signal templates are interpolated across 21 Monte Carlo samples covering a_tau from -0.1 to 0.1, and the two-dimensional likelihood in (a_tau, sigma_fid) is evaluated; confidence intervals are read off along the generator-predicted correlation between a_tau and the cross section, normalized to data. This correlation curve, which breaks the approximate a_tau -> -a_tau symmetry through the monotonically increasing cross section, is what converts the measured spectra into an a_tau bound.

Load-bearing premise

The reported a_tau interval assumes that the Monte Carlo generator's predicted relationship between the fiducial cross section and a_tau, normalized to the data, is the correct path through the likelihood plane; if photon-flux, survival-probability, or generator modeling makes that relationship wrong, the quoted confidence intervals are mis-calibrated.

What would settle it

Re-do the profile-likelihood extraction treating sigma_fid as a free nuisance parameter (profiled out) instead of fixing the scan to the generator correlation curve; if the resulting 95% interval for a_tau shifts by more than roughly 0.01, the published bound depends on generator modeling. A lighter check: compare the sigma_fid(a_tau) relation predicted by two independent Monte Carlo generators after normalizing to data; if they differ by more than the few-percent level claimed, the interval's calibration is in question.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The a_tau interval improves the previous PbPb measurement by more than a factor of three and is comparable to constraints from LEP and ATLAS, in a complementary low-mass phase space.
  • The fiducial cross section, the most precise for gamma gamma to tau tau at the LHC, agrees with NLO QED predictions within uncertainties, including the small +0.35% NLO correction.
  • The four-channel combination demonstrates that the muon+1-prong mode dominates sensitivity, while the added channels sharpen the combined 95% interval.
  • The double-minimum structure in the likelihood, arising from the a_tau -> -a_tau degeneracy, is resolved by the cross-section normalization, which grows with a_tau.
  • The result provides a benchmark for future ultraperipheral-collision measurements with larger datasets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted a_tau interval is calibrated along the generator's predicted sigma_fid-a_tau relation; if photon-flux, survival-probability, or generator modeling shifts that curve, the 68% and 95% intervals could be mis-calibrated. Profiling sigma_fid freely rather than projecting onto the curve would test this.
  • Combining this low-mass PbPb constraint with the high-mass proton-proton measurement (m_tau_tau > 50 GeV) could yield a single a_tau constraint spanning very different kinematic regimes, potentially breaking residual degeneracies.
  • The normalization-dependent breaking of the a_tau sign degeneracy suggests that adding even one high-statistics channel or a dedicated low-pT electron trigger could sharpen the 68% interval, which is currently set by the muon+1-prong channel alone.
  • The central cross-section value sits a few percent below the NLO prediction, within uncertainties; future data could distinguish QED modeling effects in the survival probability from new physics in the gamma-gamma-tau coupling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the gamma-gamma -> tau+tau- production cross section in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at sqrt(sNN)=5.02 TeV using 1.70 nb^-1 of CMS data. Four tau decay channels (mu+1-prong, mu+3-prong, mu+e, e+3-prong) are analyzed. A simultaneous binned likelihood fit to the charged-lepton pT distributions, with signal templates from UPCGEN spanning a_tau in [-0.1,0.1], is used to extract a_tau and the fiducial cross section for pT(tau)>1 GeV and |eta(tau)|<3. The results are -0.039 < a_tau < 0.032 at 95% CL and sigma_fid = 555+60-14 microbarn, in agreement with NLO QED predictions. The analysis improves the previous CMS PbPb result by more than a factor of three and provides the most precise LHC cross-section measurement for this process to date.

Significance. Assuming the statistical construction is valid, the new a_tau interval is competitive with the ATLAS PbPb and DELPHI results and probes a low-mass complement to the CMS pp measurement. The cross-section measurement is the most precise at the LHC and agrees with NLO QED. The paper benefits from a four-channel combination, data-driven background estimates, and HEPData tables. However, the a_tau and sigma_fid results are conditional on the UPCGEN-predicted sigma_fid(a_tau) curve, so the quoted statistical coverage is not established; this is the main point that must be addressed before the result can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.2, Eq. (3), Fig. 3] The one-dimensional -2∆lnL for a_tau is evaluated along the UPCGEN sigma_fid(a_tau) curve (dotted curve in Fig. 3), not by profiling sigma_fid out of the 2D likelihood as specified in Eq. (3). This imposes the generator's predicted correlation as a hard constraint: for each a_tau, sigma_fid is fixed to the curve. The reported 95% CL interval -0.039 < a_tau < 0.032 therefore excludes the uncertainty in this relation and could be anti-conservative if the true sigma_fid(a_tau) has a different slope or normalization. Since the signal normalization carries much of the a_tau sensitivity in this low-mass regime, this is a load-bearing issue. Please provide the profile-likelihood curve and the interval obtained when sigma_fid is profiled, or otherwise justify the curve with a coverage study.
  2. [5.2, Fig. 3] The 2D contours at -2∆lnL=1 and 4 are introduced as chosen 'so that their intersections with the dotted curve match the 68 and 95% CL intervals.' This is circular: the 1D intervals are defined by the curve, and the contour levels are then tuned to reproduce them. The levels 1 and 4 are not the standard 2D delta-likelihood thresholds (2.30 and 6.18 for two degrees of freedom). As a result, the joint likelihood surface is not presented in a way that allows the reader to assess the true 2D constraints or the validity of the 1D reduction.
  3. [5.4, Fig. 3] The quoted fiducial cross section sigma_fid = 555+60-14 microbarn is given at the best-fit point along the UPCGEN curve (red star), not at the unconditional maximum of the 2D likelihood. The abstract and summary describe this as resulting from a 'simultaneous likelihood fit,' but the reported value and its asymmetric uncertainty are conditional on the curve. Please provide the unconditional MLE and the profile-likelihood interval for sigma_fid, and compare with the curve-based result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [5.3] The statement that the strongest current constraint on a_tau comes from CMS pp measurement at high m_tau tau cites Ref. [46] (light-by-light scattering paper). The correct reference is [16] (CMS pp gamma-gamma -> tau tau observation and limits).
  2. [Fig. 3] The upper x-axis (sigma_fid) is not described in the caption as corresponding to the sigma_fid values along the dotted curve; please clarify.
  3. [5.4] The 'LO prediction, sigma_fid_LO = 568±3' is quoted for both UPCGEN and gamma-UPC; clarify which generator gives this value, or state that both agree.
  4. [4] The text says the 0n0n emission probability is used as a weight in MC simulation, but earlier says it is well reproduced by MC; clarify whether the data-derived probability replaces the MC or is used as a correction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the a_tau constraint is a model-dependent likelihood slice, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

This is an experimental measurement whose derivation chain is a binned likelihood fit of data to external Monte Carlo templates; no step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction. The a_tau constraint is obtained from the 2D likelihood L(a_tau, sigma_fid) (Eq. 3) using signal yields nu_i^sig = sigma_fid L_int A_i(a_tau) (Eq. 2), with A_i(a_tau) interpolated from 21 UPCGEN samples; a_tau and sigma_fid are both floated and nuisance parameters are included. The quoted 95% CL interval -0.039 < a_tau < 0.032 is read along the UPCGEN-predicted sigma_fid(a_tau) correlation curve rather than from the fully profiled 1D likelihood; this makes the interval model-dependent on the generator's sigma_fid(a_tau) relation and is a legitimate coverage/calibration concern if that relation is inaccurate, but the curve itself is not derived from or fitted to the data (it is only 'normalized to data'), so this is not circular. Self-citations (CMS refs [14,46,50,51]) are used for detector performance, previous measurements, and analysis tools; the load-bearing theory comparison is to independent NLO QED predictions [21,22] and to cross-checks between the gamma-UPC and UPCGEN generators, which are external benchmarks. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed empirical pattern is invoked to force the result. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The measurement depends on standard HEP tools plus the assumed reliability of the signal generators and the external SM value of a_tau. The only fitted physics parameters are a_tau and sigma_fid, together with constrained systematic nuisance parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • a_tau (anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton) = -0.019 (best fit); 95% CL interval [-0.039, 0.032]
    Primary physics parameter; determined by the simultaneous likelihood fit to the lepton pT distributions (Sec. 5.1).
  • sigma_fid (fiducial gamma-gamma -> tau+tau- cross section) = 555 +60 -14 ub with a_tau free; 589 +43 -40 ub with a_tau fixed to SM
    Extracted in the same fit; the correlation with a_tau creates the double-minimum structure and the asymmetric uncertainty.
  • Dominant systematic nuisance parameters (muon trigger/reco, pion tracking, HF veto, tau decay modeling, luminosity) = constrained by priors in the fit
    Muon 3.7%, pion tracking 3.2%, HF veto 2.7%, tau decay model 2.5%, luminosity 1.7% (Sec. 4); these are profiled in the likelihood and affect the central result.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Standard Model value a_tau^SM = 0.00117721(5)
    External theory benchmark from Ref. [17], used for comparison; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption gamma-UPC charged form-factor photon flux accurately models photon spectra from Pb ions
    Used for signal templates, background MC, and NLO predictions (Secs. 3 and 5.4); the paper assumes no additional photon-flux uncertainty.
  • domain assumption UPCGEN interpolation of 21 MC samples spanning -0.1 < a_tau < 0.1 gives unbiased signal templates
    The a_tau extraction rests on this interpolation being smooth and faithful (Sec. 5.1, Eq. 2).
  • domain assumption Track multiplicity and HF-activity are uncorrelated for background events in the ABCD estimate
    The residual background normalization in Sec. 4 assumes this uncorrelated pair of observables.
  • domain assumption GEANT4/PYTHIA8/TAUOLA simulations describe tau decays, FSR, and detector response
    Used for acceptance, efficiency, and cross-feed corrections (Sec. 3); the PYTHIA8 vs TAUOLA difference is assigned a 2.5% systematic.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36809 in / 17779 out tokens · 166801 ms · 2026-08-01T10:38:49.943201+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The production of $\tau$ lepton pairs via photon-photon fusion, $\gamma\gamma \to \tau \tau$, is studied in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV. The dataset, collected by the CMS experiment in 2018, corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 1.70 nb$^{-1}$. Four different $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay final states are analyzed. A simultaneous likelihood fit to the measured lepton transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) distributions, which incorporates information from both spectral shape and normalization, is used to constrain the anomalous magnetic moment of the $\tau$ lepton, $a_\tau$, and to extract the cross section of the process. The measured 95% CL interval for $a_\tau$ is $-$0.039 $\lt$ $a_\tau$ $\lt$ 0.032. The fiducial cross section, $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma \to \tau \tau}^\text{fid}$ = 555$^{+60}_{-14}$ $\mu$b for tau leptons with $p_\mathrm{T}^\tau$ $\gt$ 1 GeV and pseudorapidity $\lvert\eta^\tau\rvert$ $\lt$ 3, is the most precise measurement for this process at the LHC to date and is in agreement with next-to-leading-order quantum electrodynamics predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20148 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram of the PbPb γγ −→ b (∗) τ +τ −b (∗) process, with one tau lepton decaying lep￾tonically and the other hadronically (3-prong final state). The charge-conjugate mode with a positive muon is implicitly included. The two γττ vertices are sensitive to aτ . The star super￾script in b(∗) indicates a possible electromagnetic excitation of the lead ion. simultaneous fit that combines the normalizations and … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Postfit distributions of the decay charged lepton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Negative log-likelihood results from the combined fit to the decay-lepton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The aτ limits derived in this work for each individual decay channel and their com￾bined result (five lower entries) compared with previous CMS [14, 16], ATLAS [13], and DEL￾PHI [12] measurements. The red and green bars indicate their corresponding 68 and 95% CL intervals. The SM value is indicated by the vertical dashed line. when aτ is fixed to the SM value a SM τ = 0.00117721. The asymmetric and enlarge… view at source ↗

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

54 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Theory of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, “Theory of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron”,Atoms7(2019) 28,doi:10.3390/atoms7010028. References 13

    doi:10.3390/atoms7010028 2019

  2. [2]

    Measurement of the electron magnetic moment

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, “Measurement of the electron magnetic moment”,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 071801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.071801,arXiv:2209.13084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  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

    arXiv 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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update

    R. Aliberti et al., “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update”,Phys. Rept.1143(2025) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2025.08.002, arXiv:2505.21476

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Toward testing the magnetic moment of the tau at one part per million

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and J. M. Roney, “Toward testing the magnetic moment of the tau at one part per million”,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 093007, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093007,arXiv:2111.10378

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    The possibility of using a large heavy-ion collider for measuring the electromagnetic properties of the tau lepton

    F. del Aguila, F. Cornet, and J. I. Illana, “The possibility of using a large heavy-ion collider for measuring the electromagnetic properties of the tau lepton”,Phys. Lett. B271(1991) 256,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91309-J

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91309-j 1991

  8. [8]

    Tau pair production via photon-photon collisions at LEP

    F. Cornet and J. I. Illana, “Tau pair production via photon-photon collisions at LEP”, Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 1181,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.1181, arXiv:hep-ph/9503466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  9. [9]

    Possibility of DeterminingτLepton Electromagnetic Moments inγγ→τ +τ − Process at the CERN-LHC

    S. Atag and A. A. Billur, “Possibility of DeterminingτLepton Electromagnetic Moments inγγ→τ +τ − Process at the CERN-LHC”,JHEP11(2010) 060, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2010)060,arXiv:1005.2841

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    New physics and taug−2 using LHC heavy ion collisions

    L. Beresford and J. Liu, “New physics and taug−2 using LHC heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 113008,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.113008, arXiv:1908.05180. [Erratum:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.039902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Anomalous electromagnetic moments ofτlepton inγγ→τ +τ − reaction in PbPb collisions at the LHC

    M. Dyndal, M. Klusek-Gawenda, M. Schott, and A. Szczurek, “Anomalous electromagnetic moments ofτlepton inγγ→τ +τ − reaction in PbPb collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135682,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135682, arXiv:2002.05503

    arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Study of tau-pair production in photon-photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton

    DELPHI Collaboration, “Study of tau-pair production in photon-photon collisions at LEP and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of the tau lepton”,Eur. Phys. J. C 35(2004) 159,doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-01852-y,arXiv:hep-ex/0406010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    Observation of theγγ→τ +τ − process in PbPb Collisions and constraints on theτ-Lepton Anomalous Magnetic Moment with the ATLAS Detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of theγγ→τ +τ − process in PbPb Collisions and constraints on theτ-Lepton Anomalous Magnetic Moment with the ATLAS Detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 151802,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151802, arXiv:2204.13478

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Observation ofτlepton pair production in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation ofτlepton pair production in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 151803, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151803,arXiv:2206.05192. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Differential measurements ofγγ→τ +τ − and constraints on τ-lepton electromagnetic moments in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV with ATLAS

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Differential measurements ofγγ→τ +τ − and constraints on τ-lepton electromagnetic moments in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV with ATLAS”, 2026.arXiv:2605.04584. Submitted for publication

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Observation ofγγ→τ +τ − in proton-proton collisions and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of theτlepton

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation ofγγ→τ +τ − in proton-proton collisions and limits on the anomalous electromagnetic moments of theτlepton”,Rept. Prog. Phys.87(2024) 107801,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad6fcb,arXiv:2406.03975

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Theory of the tau lepton anomalous magnetic moment

    S. Eidelman and M. Passera, “Theory of the tau lepton anomalous magnetic moment”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A22(2007) 159,doi:10.1142/S0217732307022694, arXiv:hep-ph/0701260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    The physics of ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC

    A. J. Baltz et al., “The physics of ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Rept.458 (2008) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.12.001,arXiv:0706.3356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,Phys. Rept.1115(2025) 219,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.007, arXiv:2405.10785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Electromagnetic dissociation as a tool for nuclear structure and astrophysics

    G. Baur, K. Hencken, and D. Trautmann, “Electromagnetic dissociation as a tool for nuclear structure and astrophysics”,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.51(2003) 487, doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(03)90006-8,arXiv:nucl-th/0304041

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  21. [21]

    Dimuon and ditau production in photon-photon collisions at next-to-leading order in QED

    H.-S. Shao and D. d’Enterria, “Dimuon and ditau production in photon-photon collisions at next-to-leading order in QED”,JHEP02(2025) 023, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)023,arXiv:2407.13610

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Automated next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak predictions of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions

    H.-S. Shao and L. Simon, “Automated next-to-leading order QCD and electroweak predictions of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions”,JHEP07(2025) 020,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)020,arXiv:2504.10104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.180841

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.180841 2026

  24. [24]

    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

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

  25. [25]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    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. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    The CMS Phase-1 pixel detector upgrade

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Calibration of the CMS hadron calorimeters using proton-proton collision data at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Calibration of the CMS hadron calorimeters using proton-proton collision data at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P05002, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/05/P05002,arXiv:1910.00079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Status of zero degree calorimeter for CMS experiment

    CMS Collaboration, “Status of zero degree calorimeter for CMS experiment”,AIP Conf. Proc.867(2006) 258,doi:10.1063/1.2396962,arXiv:nucl-ex/0608052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  35. [35]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  37. [37]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [38]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    gamma-UPC: automated generation of exclusive photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral proton and nuclear collisions with varying form factors

    H.-S. Shao and D. d’Enterria, “gamma-UPC: automated generation of exclusive photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral proton and nuclear collisions with varying form factors”,JHEP09(2022) 248,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)248, arXiv:2207.03012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    UPCGEN: A Monte Carlo simulation program for dilepton pair production in ultra-peripheral collisions of heavy ions

    N. Burmasov, E. Kryshen, P . Buehler, and R. Lavicka, “UPCGEN: A Monte Carlo simulation program for dilepton pair production in ultra-peripheral collisions of heavy ions”,Comput. Phys. Commun.277(2022) 108388, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108388,arXiv:2111.11383

    arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  43. [43]

    TAUOLA ofτlepton decays—framework for hadronic currents, matrix elements and anomalous decays

    M. Chrzaszcz, T. Przedzinski, Z. Was, and J. Zaremba, “TAUOLA ofτlepton decays—framework for hadronic currents, matrix elements and anomalous decays”, Comput. Phys. Commun.232(2018) 220,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.017, arXiv:1609.04617. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Exclusive LHC physics with heavy ions: SuperChic 3

    L. A. Harland-Lang, V . A. Khoze, and M. G. Ryskin, “Exclusive LHC physics with heavy ions: SuperChic 3”,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 39, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6530-5,arXiv:1810.06567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

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

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

  46. [46]

    Measurement of light-by-light scattering and the Breit–Wheeler process, and search for axion-like particles in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of light-by-light scattering and the Breit–Wheeler process, and search for axion-like particles in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV”,JHEP08(2025) 006,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)006, arXiv:2412.15413

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Exciting ions: A systematic treatment of ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions with nuclear breakup

    L. A. Harland-Lang, “Exciting ions: A systematic treatment of ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions with nuclear breakup”,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 093004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.093004,arXiv:2303.04826

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Improved modeling of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions at hadron colliders

    N. Cr ´epet, D. d’Enterria, and H.-S. Shao, “Improved modeling of photon-photon processes in ultraperipheral collisions at hadron colliders”,PoSDIS2024(2025) 124, doi:10.22323/1.469.0124,arXiv:2409.18485

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Data analysis in high energy physics: A practical guide to statistical methods

    O. Behnke, K. Kr ¨oninger, T. Sch¨orner-Sadenius, and G. Schott, eds., “Data analysis in high energy physics: A practical guide to statistical methods”. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2013. ISBN 978-3-527-41058-3, 978-3-527-65344-7, 978-3-527-65343-0

    2013

  50. [50]

    Luminosity measurement for lead-lead collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2015 and 2018 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity measurement for lead-lead collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2015 and 2018 at CMS”, 2025.arXiv:2503.03946. Submitted to EPJC

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Progress in the Glauber model at collider energies

    D. d’Enterria and C. Loizides, “Progress in the Glauber model at collider energies”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 315,doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-060007, arXiv:2011.14909

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Exclusive dimuon production in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV with ATLAS

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Exclusive dimuon production in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV with ATLAS”,Phys. Rev. C104(2021) 024906, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024906,arXiv:2011.12211

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Electroweak corrections toτ +τ − production in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions at the LHC

    S. Dittmaier, T. Engel, J. L. H. Ariza, and M. Pellen, “Electroweak corrections toτ +τ − production in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions at the LHC”,JHEP08(2025) 051, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)051,arXiv:2504.11391. 17 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Belyaev , A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiep...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025