Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 94 references

Combination of vector boson scattering measurements in leptonic final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Combining seven vector boson scattering analyses in a single profile-likelihood fit yields signal strengths consistent with the standard model while improving precision by up to 15%.

desk verdict A solid, standard CMS combination paper that delivers the first coherent 4- and 6-POI VBS fits and a new charge-separated W measurement; the correlation scheme is the one soft spot, but it does not sink the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01289 v1 pith:D7OLQPJK submitted 2026-08-02 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords vectorbosonscatteringelectroweakgaugebosonssame-signWWopposite-signWZproductionZZsignalstrengthchargeasymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper combines seven CMS measurements of electroweak vector boson scattering into one statistical fit, using 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. The goal is to see whether the rates of same-sign WW, opposite-sign WW, WZ, and ZZ production, each accompanied by two forward jets, all agree with the standard model when constrained simultaneously. The fit returns signal strengths near one in all channels, with all results within 68.3% confidence of the standard model predictions, and it improves the precision of the OSWW and WZ channels by up to 15% over the best single measurement entering the combination. A second fit that separates $W^+$ and $W^-$ charges probes the production charge asymmetry expected from the proton's valence quarks. If the results are right, the electroweak gauge structure of the standard model passes a simultaneous test across all VBS processes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a binned profile-likelihood fit in which the signal strength $\mu=\sigma_{\mathrm{obs}}/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$ scales the predicted signal templates in each phase-space region. The combined likelihood multiplies Poisson terms over 48 phase-space regions and 1525 bins, with nuisance parameters for shared experimental and theoretical uncertainties, per-bin terms for the limited size of simulated samples, and a specified correlation scheme across analyses and data-taking years. Orthogonality among the seven input analyses is enforced primarily by exclusive charged-lepton multiplicities and vetoes, refined by kinematic selections on the VBS jets. Statistical significance and confidence intervals come from the profile likelihood ratio in the asymptotic limit.

What would settle it

Run a set of simulated events through the selections of the WZ signal region and the WV and ZV signal regions and count how many pass more than one selection; any nonzero overlap would mean the orthogonality premise fails and the product likelihood double-counts events.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a global statistical combination of VBS measurements yields signal strengths $\mu = \sigma_{\mathrm{obs}}/\sigma_{\mathrm{SM}}$ of $1.05^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ for SSWW, $1.11^{+0.20}_{-0.20}$ for OSWW, $1.21^{+0.28}_{-0.25}$ for WZ, and $1.15^{+0.44}_{-0.37}$ for ZZ in the four-parameter model, with statistical significances above 5, 6.4, 7.0, and 4.0 standard deviations, respectively. In the six-parameter charge-separated model, the values are $1.13^{+0.17}_{-0.16}$ for $W^+W^+$, $0.84^{+0.28}_{-0.24}$ for $W^-W^-$, $1.10^{+0.20}_{-0.20}$ for $W^+W^-$, $1.16^{+0.32}_{-0.27}$ for $W^+Z$, $1.31^{+0.47}_{-0.40}$ for $W^-Z$, and $1.16^{+0.44}_{-0.38}$ for ZZ. All measured values agree with the standard model within 68.3% confidence, and two-dimensional simultaneous fits show only mild correlations among the signal strengths. The paper presents this as a coherent global test of the electroweak gauge structure that was not accessible in single-channel measurements, with sensitivity improved by up to 15% in the OSWW and WZ channels.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the seven input analyses sample disjoint events and that the correlations among their shared systematic uncertainties are correctly specified, so the product likelihood in Eq. (2) is a faithful description; if events can enter more than one region or the correlation scheme is wrong, the combined uncertainties and the claimed 15% improvement could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All four VBS production modes are constrained in a single coherent fit, so their signal strengths can be compared with the standard model as a correlated set rather than channel by channel.
  • The six-parameter charge-separated fit gives simultaneous access to $W^+$ and $W^-$ rates, making the expected production charge asymmetry from the proton's valence quarks measurable in one framework.
  • The combination improves the precision of the OSWW and WZ channels by up to 15% relative to the best single measurement entering the fit.
  • If the measurements are correct, the electroweak gauge sector remains intact across same-sign WW, opposite-sign WW, WZ, and ZZ scattering at this energy and luminosity.
  • The 48-region, 1525-bin likelihood provides a reusable statistical benchmark for future VBS combinations at higher luminosity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The ratio of the charge-separated signal strengths, e.g. $\mu_{W^+W^+}/\mu_{W^-W^-}$ and $\mu_{W^+Z}/\mu_{W^-Z}$, would isolate the production charge asymmetry more directly than the six individual values, and the paper does not report those ratios.
  • Inference: The same combined likelihood could be reinterpreted as a constraint on anomalous quartic gauge couplings, although the paper stops at the standard-model signal-strength interpretation.
  • Inference: Because the robustness of the correlation scheme is described as an internal test, an independent re-analysis using only the public per-channel results with alternative correlation assumptions would settle whether the 15% precision gain is stable.
  • Inference: A simulation-based closure test that deliberately injects events satisfying two different region selections would quantify how much the orthogonality assumption matters for the central values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a statistical combination of seven CMS measurements of electroweak vector boson scattering (VBS) at sqrt(s)=13 TeV using 138 fb^-1 of data. A profile-likelihood fit is performed over 48 phase-space regions with the COMBINE tool, using a 4-POI model (SSWW, OSWW, WZ, ZZ) and a 6-POI model that separates W boson charges. The measured signal strengths are consistent with the standard model, with significances ranging from 4.0 to >5 sigma, and the charge-separated fit probes the production charge asymmetry. The paper claims improved sensitivity of up to 15% relative to the best individual CMS channels and positions the result as the most comprehensive VBS combination to date.

Significance. If the quoted intervals are correct, this is a valuable global consistency test of the electroweak gauge structure and the first simultaneous charge-separated VBS constraint. The analysis uses the established CMS/ATLAS profile-likelihood framework with COMBINE, provides tabulated results in HEPData, and explicitly constructs orthogonal phase-space regions. The central results are falsifiable and should be of broad interest to the electroweak and Higgs sectors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (2), Table 3] The cross-analysis nuisance parameter correlation scheme is load-bearing for the quoted signal strengths and intervals in Table 3, the significances, and the claimed up-to-15% improvement in Section 8, but the manuscript only states in Section 6 that theoretical uncertainties are correlated across analyses 'wherever appropriate' and that the adopted correlation scheme was 'tested for robustness' with 'limited sensitivity' to variations. The paper does not list which nuisance parameters are shared among SSWW, OSWW, WZ, ZZ, WV, and ZV, nor does it quantify the robustness test. Because the product likelihood in Eq. (2) is sensitive to over- or under-correlation of common luminosity (1.6%), PDF/scale, and jet energy scale uncertainties, please specify the shared nuisance parameters and report the numerical effect of the tested correlation variations on the Table 3 intervals in the Letter or in the HEPData record.
  2. [Section 5 and Eq. (2)] The product likelihood in Eq. (2) assumes statistical independence of the 48 phase-space regions. The paper asserts in Section 5 that exclusive charged-lepton multiplicities and kinematic vetoes make the regions orthogonal, but it does not demonstrate that the WV and ZV hadronic-V categories are fully disjoint from the fully leptonic OSWW, WZ, and ZZ categories. Please provide a concise cross-check of zero event overlap between all pairs of input analyses, or cite the specific tables or figures in Refs. [35-40] that establish this orthogonality, so that the independence assumption behind Eq. (2) can be verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7 and Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: '68.3% ans 95.5%' should be '68.3% and 95.5%'; also, '95.5%' should be made consistent with '95.4%' used in Section 7.
  2. [Eq. (2)] The index notation 'bin=k' and 'syst=j' is informal; please define the range or meaning of these indices explicitly.
  3. [Table 2] The subregion entry 'CR DY resolved b-tag, b-veto (2017-2018)' appears to represent two subregions, but this is not stated; clarify the decomposition so that the total count of 48 phase-space regions is traceable.
  4. [Reference [21]] The date format '6, 2026' is nonstandard; please use a conventional month/year format such as 'Jun 2026'.
  5. [Figure 4] The labels '1 SD (stat) ⊕ 1 SD (syst)' are visually ambiguous; please indicate clearly which band represents the statistical and which represents the systematic component.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VBS signal strengths are measured ratio parameters from collision data, not derived from the SM predictions they are compared with.

full rationale

The paper's central results are signal strengths extracted by a profile-likelihood fit to collision data, and no quantity is derived from the SM prediction and then presented as a prediction. The signal strengths are defined in Section 7 as mu = sigma_obs/sigma_SM, so the SM enters only as a normalization and as a comparison benchmark; the fit leaves all POIs free and does not impose the SM values. The charge asymmetry is an output of the 6-POI fit, not a constraint put into that fit. The claimed up-to-15% improvement in sensitivity is a statement about the fitted interval widths, which follow from the likelihood in Eq. (2) and the input templates, not from any parameter being fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The input analyses are independent CMS measurements based on data, and citing them is a normal use of published results, not an unverified self-citation carrying the derivation. The correlation scheme for shared systematics is an assumption that is stated and tested for robustness, but a statistical assumption is not a circular step. There is no uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known result being relabeled. The derivation chain therefore does not reduce by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The paper is a measurement; its parameters of interest are fitted outputs, and its only free parameters are those POIs plus the constrained nuisance parameters of the systematic uncertainty model. No hidden ad hoc parameters are introduced to force agreement with the standard model.

free parameters (10)
  • mu_SSWW = 1.05 +0.15 -0.14
    Signal strength for same-sign WW, parameter of interest in the 4-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output, not a hidden input.
  • mu_OSWW = 1.11 +0.20 -0.20
    Signal strength for opposite-sign WW in the 4-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_WZ = 1.21 +0.28 -0.25
    Signal strength for WZ production in the 4-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_ZZ = 1.15 +0.44 -0.37
    Signal strength for ZZ production in the 4-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_W+W+ = 1.13 +0.17 -0.16
    Charge-separated signal strength for W+W+ in the 6-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_W-W- = 0.84 +0.28 -0.24
    Charge-separated signal strength for W-W- in the 6-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_W+W- = 1.10 +0.20 -0.20
    Charge-separated signal strength for W+W- in the 6-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_W+Z = 1.16 +0.32 -0.27
    Charge-separated signal strength for W+Z in the 6-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_W-Z = 1.31 +0.47 -0.40
    Charge-separated signal strength for W-Z in the 6-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
  • mu_ZZ_6POI = 1.16 +0.44 -0.38
    Signal strength for ZZ in the 6-POI model, fitted to data. It is the measurement output.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption EW VBS signal predictions from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO at leading order define the expected signal, and the signal strengths scale these templates.
    Section 4. If the Monte Carlo normalization or kinematics are wrong, the measured signal strengths would be biased, though the result remains a measurement relative to this definition.
  • domain assumption The NNPDF3.0 and NNPDF3.1 parton distribution functions and the PYTHIA tunes (CUETP8M1 or CP5) used in the input analyses are correct.
    Section 4. These affect signal and background yields and are taken from the input analyses without revalidation in this paper.
  • standard math The profile likelihood test statistic follows the asymptotic chi-square distribution of Wilk's theorem.
    Section 7. Used to convert the test statistic q into confidence levels and significances; standard in LHC analyses but an approximation that could fail in low-count bins.
  • domain assumption The 48 phase space regions are mutually exclusive so that the product of per-region Poisson likelihoods in Eq. (2) is valid.
    Section 5. Orthogonality is enforced by exclusive charged-lepton multiplicities and kinematic vetoes; if any region overlaps, the combination would double-count events.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Combination of vector boson scattering measurements in leptonic final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D7OLQPJK

@misc{pith2026260801289,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Combination of vector boson scattering measurements in leptonic final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D7OLQPJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01289}
}
abstract

A statistical combination of vector boson scattering measurements in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV is presented. The analysis is based on a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$, collected with the CMS detector in 2016$-$2018. Events are selected to contain two vector bosons, with at least one decaying leptonically, and at least two additional jets with a high invariant mass and a large pseudorapidity separation. Signal rates are extracted for same-sign WW, opposite-sign WW, as well as for WZ and ZZ channels, and are compared with the standard model predictions. The combination provides a global view of vector boson scattering by simultaneously constraining all channels in a coherent framework, improving sensitivity beyond individual inputs, with all results in agreement with the standard model predictions. In addition, a charge-separated measurement is performed in which W bosons are distinguished according to their electric charge, allowing sensitivity to the production charge asymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01289 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The left side shows a representative schematic diagram for the EW-induced produc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The signal fractions for each analysis contributing to the combination are presented, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The likelihood profiles from the combined fit for the various POIs listed in the legends [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measurement of the VBS signal strengths ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed log10[S(µi = 1)/B] distributions for the VBS SM combination and four parameters model. From left to right, upper to lower, the filled white histograms represent the overall background contributions, whereas the blue histograms represent the signal yields for µ…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Summary plots of the two-dimensional fits for all pairs of POIs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, References 15 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020,arXiv:1207.7214

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

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

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

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

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

    arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery

    CMS Collaboration, “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 60,doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04892-x, arXiv:2207.00043. [Erratum:doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06164-8]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery

    ATLAS Collaboration, “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery”,Nature607(2022) 52, doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04893-w,arXiv:2207.00092. [Erratum: doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05581-5]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.321 1964

  7. [7]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields”,Phys. Lett.12 (1964) 132,doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9

    doi:10.1016/0031-9163(64)91136-9 1964

  8. [8]

    Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13 (1964) 508,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.13.508 1964

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Global conservation laws and massless particles

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global conservation laws and massless particles”,Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 585,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585

    1964 doi

  2. [10]

    Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons

    P . W. Higgs, “Spontaneous symmetry breakdown without massless bosons”,Phys. Rev. 145(1966) 1156,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.145.1156

    1966 doi

  3. [11]

    Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Symmetry breaking in non-Abelian gauge theories”,Phys. Rev.155 (1967) 1554,doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1554

    1967 doi

  4. [12]

    The equivalence theorem

    H. Veltman, “The equivalence theorem”,Phys. Rev. D41(1990) 2294, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.2294

    1990 doi

  5. [13]

    On the precise formulation of equivalence theorem

    H.-J. He, Y.-P . Kuang, and X. Li, “On the precise formulation of equivalence theorem”, Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 2619,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2619

    1992 doi

  6. [14]

    Weak interactions at very high energies: The role of the Higgs-boson mass

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “Weak interactions at very high energies: The role of the Higgs-boson mass”,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1519, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1519

    1977 doi

  7. [15]

    Strength of weak interactions at very high energies and the Higgs boson mass

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “Strength of weak interactions at very high energies and the Higgs boson mass”,Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 883, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.883

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    Longitudinal WW scattering in light of the “Higgs boson

    D. Espriu and B. Yencho, “Longitudinal WW scattering in light of the “Higgs boson” discovery”,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 055017,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.055017, arXiv:1212.4158. 16

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    WW scattering in the era of post-Higgs-boson discovery

    J. Chang, K. Cheung, C.-T. Lu, and T.-C. Yuan, “WW scattering in the era of post-Higgs-boson discovery”,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 093005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.093005,arXiv:1303.6335

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    pp→jje ±µ±ννandjje ±µ∓νν atO(α 6 em)andO(α 4 emα2 s )for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC

    O. J. P . Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi, “pp→jje ±µ±ννandjje ±µ∓νν atO(α 6 em)andO(α 4 emα2 s )for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC”,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 073005,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.073005, arXiv:hep-ph/0606118

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and two same-sign lepton final state in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 081801,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.081801, arXiv:1709.05822

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Observation of electroweak production of two jets and a Z-boson pair

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of two jets and a Z-boson pair”,Nature Phys.19(2023) 237,doi:10.1038/s41567-022-01757-y, arXiv:2004.10612

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Observation of electroweak production of pairs of Z bosons in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak production of pairs of Z bosons in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV”, 6, 2026.arXiv:2606.20558

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    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

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

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

    2017

  16. [24]

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

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

    2018

  17. [25]

    Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusiveW + ,W− andZ/γ∗ production cross sections with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusiveW + ,W− andZ/γ∗ production cross sections with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 367,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4911-9,arXiv:1612.03016

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Measurement of the cross-section and charge asymmetry ofW bosons produced in proton–proton collisions at√s=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the cross-section and charge asymmetry ofW bosons produced in proton–proton collisions at√s=8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 760,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7199-0, arXiv:1904.05631

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Measurement of the electron charge asymmetry in inclusiveW production in pp collisions at√s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the electron charge asymmetry in inclusiveW production in pp collisions at√s=7 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 111806, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.111806,arXiv:1206.2598

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Measurement of the muon charge asymmetry in inclusive pp→W+Xproduction at √s=7 TeV and an improved determination of light parton distribution functions

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the muon charge asymmetry in inclusive pp→W+Xproduction at √s=7 TeV and an improved determination of light parton distribution functions”,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 032004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.032004,arXiv:1312.6283

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Measurement of the differential cross section and charge asymmetry for inclusive pp→W ± +Xproduction at √s=8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the differential cross section and charge asymmetry for inclusive pp→W ± +Xproduction at √s=8 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 469,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4293-4,arXiv:1603.01803

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    InclusiveWandZproduction in the forward region at √s=7 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, “InclusiveWandZproduction in the forward region at √s=7 TeV”,JHEP06(2012) 058,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2012)058,arXiv:1204.1620. References 17

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Measurement of forward W and Z boson production in pp collisions at√s=8 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of forward W and Z boson production in pp collisions at√s=8 TeV”,JHEP01(2016) 155,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)155, arXiv:1511.08039

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Measurement of double-differential charged-current Drell-Yan cross-sections at high transverse masses in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of double-differential charged-current Drell-Yan cross-sections at high transverse masses in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP07(2025) 026,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)026, arXiv:2502.21088

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Measurement ofW ±-boson differential cross-sections in proton-proton collisions with low pile-up data at√s=5.02 TeV and 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement ofW ±-boson differential cross-sections in proton-proton collisions with low pile-up data at√s=5.02 TeV and 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 729, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14178-x,arXiv:2502.09403

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Measurements of theWboson rapidity, helicity, double-differential cross sections, and charge asymmetry in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of theWboson rapidity, helicity, double-differential cross sections, and charge asymmetry in pp collisions at√s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 092012,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.092012,arXiv:2008.04174

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

    2020

  28. [36]

    Study of same-sign W boson scattering and anomalous couplings in events with one tau lepton from pp collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Study of same-sign W boson scattering and anomalous couplings in events with one tau lepton from pp collisions at√s=13 TeV”,JHEP10(2025) 219, doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2025)219,arXiv:2410.04210

    2025

  29. [37]

    Observation of electroweak W +W− pair production in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of electroweak W +W− pair production in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B841(2023) 137495, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137495,arXiv:2205.05711

    2023

  30. [38]

    Evidence for electroweak production of four charged leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for electroweak production of four charged leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B812(2021) 135992, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135992,arXiv:2008.07013

    2021

  31. [39]

    Evidence for WW/WZ vector boson scattering in the decay channel ℓνqq produced in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for WW/WZ vector boson scattering in the decay channel ℓνqq produced in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B834(2022) 137438,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137438, arXiv:2112.05259

    2022

  32. [40]

    Vector boson scattering and anomalous quartic couplings in final states withℓνqq orℓℓqq plus jets using proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Vector boson scattering and anomalous quartic couplings in final states withℓνqq orℓℓqq plus jets using proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JHEP 03(2026) 022,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2026)022,arXiv:2510.00118

    2026

  33. [41]

    Measurement of the electroweak production of Wγin association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the electroweak production of Wγin association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 032017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.032017,arXiv:2212.12592

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Measurement of the electroweak production of Zγand two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the electroweak production of Zγand two jets in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings”,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 072001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.072001, arXiv:2106.11082

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.181300. 18

    2026 doi

  36. [44]

    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

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Strategies and performance of the CMS silicon tracker alignment during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Strategies and performance of the CMS silicon tracker alignment during LHC Run 2”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1037(2022) 166795, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.166795,arXiv:2111.08757

    2022

  38. [46]

    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

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    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

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    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

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    The CMS trigger system

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

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    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

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    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

    2008 doi

  45. [53]

    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

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    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

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    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

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations

    P . Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk, “Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations”,JHEP03(2013) 015, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2013)015,arXiv:1212.3460

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    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. References 19

    2004 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations

    S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, “Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations”,JHEP06(2002) 029,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/06/029, arXiv:hep-ph/0204244

    2002 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: thePOWHEGmethod

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

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    NLO vector-boson production matched with shower inPOWHEG

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “NLO vector-boson production matched with shower inPOWHEG”,JHEP07(2008) 060,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060, arXiv:0805.4802

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

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

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

    2010 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A multi-threaded version ofMCFM

    J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and W. T. Giele, “A multi-threaded version ofMCFM”,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 246,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3461-2, arXiv:1503.06182

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    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

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders

    J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, “Update on vector boson pair production at hadron colliders”,Phys. Rev. D60(1999) 113006,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.113006, arXiv:hep-ph/9905386

    1999 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Precision phenomenology withMCFM

    J. Campbell and T. Neumann, “Precision phenomenology withMCFM”,JHEP12(2019) 034,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2019)034,arXiv:1909.09117

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC

    S. Bolognesi et al., “Spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 095031,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095031,arXiv:1208.4018

    2012 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MINLO Higgs generator

    K. Hamilton, P . Nason, and G. Zanderighi, “Finite quark-mass effects in the NNLOPS POWHEG+MINLO Higgs generator”,JHEP05(2015) 140, doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2015)140,arXiv:1501.04637

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    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

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    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

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    An introduction toPYTHIA8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction toPYTHIA8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3”, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Some dipole shower studies

    B. Cabouat and T. Sj ¨ostrand, “Some dipole shower studies”,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 226, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5645-z,arXiv:1710.00391. 20

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    TuningPYTHIA8.1: the Monash 2013 tune

    P . Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo, “TuningPYTHIA8.1: the Monash 2013 tune”,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3024,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3024-y, arXiv:1404.5630

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x,arXiv:1512.00815

    2016 arXiv

  67. [75]

    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

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    CMS PYTHIA8 colour reconnection tunes based on underlying-event data

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS PYTHIA8 colour reconnection tunes based on underlying-event data”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 587, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11630-8,arXiv:2205.02905

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

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

    2003 doi

  70. [78]

    Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders

    Y. Gao et al., “Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders”, Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 075022,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.075022, arXiv:1001.3396

    2010 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Constraining anomalous HVV interactions at proton and lepton colliders

    I. Anderson et al., “Constraining anomalous HVV interactions at proton and lepton colliders”,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 035007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.035007, arXiv:1309.4819

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques

    A. V . Gritsan, R. R¨ontsch, M. Schulze, and M. Xiao, “Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to the heavy flavor fermions using matrix element techniques”,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 055023,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.055023,arXiv:1606.03107

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    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

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    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

    2018 arXiv

  75. [83]

    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

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    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

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

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

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

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II

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

    2016 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Procedure for the lhc Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and the LHC Higgs Combination Group, “Procedure for the lhc Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011. References 21

    2011

  80. [88]

    Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at√s=7 and 8 TeV

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

    2016 arXiv

  81. [89]

    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

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    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

    1993 doi

  83. [91]

    Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra

    J. S. Conway, “Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra”, inProc. PHYSTAT2011, p. 115. 2011.arXiv:1103.0354. doi:10.5170/CERN-2011-006.115

    2011 arXiv

  84. [92]

    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]

    2011 arXiv

  85. [93]

    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

    2010 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001. 22 23 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Gevorgyan , A. Hayrapetyan, V . Makarenko , A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephy...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.