Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Search for a top-philic Z' boson decaying into a $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ pair in a final state with jets and an electron or muon in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 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 A search of 138 fb$^{-1}$ of CMS data finds no top-philic $Z'$ boson; the new 95% CL upper limits reach 3 fb and, depending on the assumed width, exclude masses below 560$-$1130 GeV.

desk verdict A standard, well-executed CMS search that extends top-philic Z' limits down to 0.5 TeV and across four width hypotheses; the main fix needed is the title's wrong center-of-mass energy, and the CR-to-SR transfer assumption deserves a data closure check but is not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01251 v1 pith:WMJJVHBC submitted 2026-08-02 hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords top-philicZ'bosonboostedtopquarksfour-top-quarkfinalstateParticleNetCMSexperimentsingle-leptonsearch95%confidencelevellimitsLHCRun2
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

The paper searches for a $Z'$ boson that couples only to top quarks, produced together with a top-antitop pair and decaying into another top-antitop pair, giving a four-top signature with one lepton. Using 138 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by CMS, it looks for a resonance in the invariant mass of the two highest transverse-momentum boosted top-quark jets. The data agree with the standard model background, so no signal is claimed. The result is a set of 95% confidence-level upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction: for a width of 4% of the mass, the limits range from 170 fb at 0.5 TeV down to 3 fb at 3 TeV, and masses below 560, 850, and 1130 GeV are excluded for widths of 10, 20, and 50%, respectively. These are the most stringent constraints so far on such a top-philic $Z'$ boson.

What carries the argument

The discriminant is the invariant mass $m_{\mathrm{rec}}^{Z'}$ of a $Z'$ candidate built from the two highest-$p_T$ large-radius jets that pass a machine-learning top tagger called ParticleNet, which identifies hadronically decaying boosted top quarks from their jet constituents and substructure. The event sample requires one isolated electron or muon, at least six jets, $H_T>700$ GeV, $p_T^{\mathrm{miss}}>60$ GeV, and at least one bottom-tagged jet. The background is modeled with simulated $m_{\mathrm{rec}}^{Z'}$ templates rescaled by a single floating normalization factor determined in a simultaneous maximum-likelihood fit of the signal region and an orthogonal control region with zero bottom-tagged jets; the control region also validates the background shape in data. The $Z'$ width is parameterized through $\Gamma_{Z'}/m_{Z'} \simeq c_t^2/(8\pi)$, so the four width assumptions correspond to different top-quark couplings.

What would settle it

If, in a data sideband with at least one bottom-tagged jet defined by looser selection (for example, relaxing the top-tagging requirement or lowering the $H_T$ threshold), the reconstructed $m_{\mathrm{rec}}^{Z'}$ distribution and its ratio to the zero-bottom-tag control region disagree with simulation by more than the floating normalization can absorb, the background transfer underpinning the limits would be falsified and the reported cross-section bounds would shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that no excess of events beyond the standard model appears in the single-lepton, four-top-jet final state, and that the resulting upper limits improve on all previous constraints. For $\Gamma_{Z'}/m_{Z'}=4\%$, the observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\mathrm{pp}\to\mathrm{t\bar{t}}Z')\,\mathcal{B}(Z'\to\mathrm{t\bar{t}})$ fall from 170 fb at $m_{Z'}=0.5\,\mathrm{TeV}$ to 3 fb at 3 TeV; for widths of 10, 20, and 50%, the corresponding limits range over 160$-$6, 160$-$9, and 110$-$17 fb. Interpreting these against the leading-order production prediction, the analysis excludes $Z'$ masses below 560, 850, and 1130 GeV for the 10, 20, and 50% width cases. The paper states these are the most stringent limits to date on a $Z'$ boson that couples exclusively to top quarks. The claim rests on a shape analysis of the reconstructed mass spectrum in a signal region requiring at least one bottom-tagged jet, with the background normalization constrained by a zero-bottom-tag control region.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the zero-bottom-tag control region reproduces the reconstructed-mass shape and background composition of the one-bottom-tag signal region, a transfer checked only in simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A top-philic $Z'$ boson with $\Gamma_{Z'}/m_{Z'}=10\%$ is excluded below 560 GeV, and with 20% (50%) width below 850 (1130) GeV, assuming 100% branching fraction to $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$.
  • For the narrow 4% width, production cross sections above 170 fb at 0.5 TeV and above 3 fb at 3 TeV are ruled out at 95% CL, constraining the coupling $c_t$ through the width relation.
  • The observed data being consistent with the standard model means the four-top final state shows no sign of the resonantly produced heavy state, complementing the observed standard-model four-top production at 13 TeV.
  • The combined electron and muon channels and the three data-taking years provide the search's statistical reach; the limits supersede the earlier ATLAS single-lepton limits, which ranged from 21 to 119 fb.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported cross-section limits can be recast as upper limits on the $Z'$–top coupling $c_t$ using $\Gamma_{Z'}/m_{Z'} \simeq c_t^2/(8\pi)$; the paper does not quote such coupling bounds, but they follow directly from the width assumptions.
  • Re-running the same analysis on Run-3 data at the higher collision energy would extend the mass reach, because the selection efficiency for boosted top quarks rises with the $Z'$ mass and the higher collision energy increases the production rate; the current search already provides its best limits at the highest masses.
  • The zero-bottom-tag control region could be supplemented by a data-driven validation region containing bottom-tagged jets but with relaxed top-tagging requirements, which would test the transfer assumption in data rather than only in simulation.
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. The paper presents a CMS search for a top-philic Z' boson produced in association with a top-antitop pair and decaying into a tt pair, using 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV pp collision data. Events are selected with a single lepton, at least six small-radius jets, HT > 700 GeV, at least one b-tagged jet, and at least two large-radius jets tagged as boosted hadronic top decays by the ParticleNet algorithm. The invariant mass of the two highest-pT top-tagged jets is used as the discriminant. The dominant tt background is constrained with a zero-b-tag control region via a simultaneous SR+CR maximum-likelihood fit with a common background normalization parameter. No significant excess is found; 95% CL upper limits on sigma(pp->ttZ')B(Z'->tt) are set for relative widths of 4, 10, 20, and 50%, with observed limits ranging from 170 to 3 fb for the 4% width, and mass exclusions of 560, 850, and 1130 GeV for the 10, 20, and 50% widths. The paper claims these are the most stringent limits to date on a top-philic Z' boson.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides the most stringent constraints to date on a top-philic Z' boson in the adopted simplified model, extending previous ATLAS limits to lower masses and to widths of 4-50%. The analysis uses the full Run 2 dataset, a state-of-the-art jet tagger, and a standard CMS statistical framework; the HEPData record and detailed systematic accounting support reproducibility. The main qualification is that the background estimate in the signal region relies on a transfer from a zero-b-tag control region that is validated only in simulation, so the central exclusion claim is vulnerable to a data/MC mismatch in the CR/SR background ratio.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 (Background estimation)] The CR-to-SR background transfer is validated only in simulation. The text states that the background composition and m_rec(Z') shape are consistent between the two regions, but the only supporting evidence shown is the prefit CR distribution in Fig. 2; no data-driven closure test is provided. Because the SR requires at least one b-tagged small-radius jet and the CR requires exactly zero, the ratio of background yields in CR and SR is directly sensitive to the data/MC modeling of b-tagging efficiency and the light-flavor mistag rate. A single common normalization parameter fitted to CR+SR will absorb any data/MC difference in the CR yield and translate it into a biased SR prediction if the simulated CR/SR ratio is wrong. The systematic uncertainties quoted in Section 5 (b-tagging scale factors of 0.3-4.9% for the background, and the 10-20% background normalization uncertainty from the fit) are not demonstrated to cover this transfer-ratio effect. The authors should add a data-driven validation, for example a region with exactly one b-tagged jet or a top-tag-inverted sideband, and quantify the resulting systematic uncertainty on the SR background normalization.
  2. [Section 6 (Results) and Fig. 4] The mass exclusions of 560, 850, and 1130 GeV are derived by comparing the observed upper limits with the LO theoretical cross-section curve from Ref. [44], but the theory curve is shown without any uncertainty band. Section 5 quotes the signal renormalization/factorization scale uncertainty as approximately 40%. The paper should state whether these quoted mass exclusions are robust under this theory uncertainty, or display the theory band in Fig. 4 so that the reader can assess the sensitivity of the mass bounds to the missing k-factor and scale choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title states sqrt(s) = 13.6 TeV, but the analysis uses 2016-2018 data at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Section 7 (Summary)] The text 'The lower limits on the ttZ' production cross section... range between 170 and 3 fb' should read 'upper limits', since the paper sets upper limits on the cross section and lower limits on the Z' boson mass.
  3. [Section 1 (Introduction)] The term 'anogenophilic' is nonstandard and undefined; it should be replaced with a standard phrase such as 'third-generation-philic' or defined at first use.
  4. [Section 4 and 5] The correlation structure of the background normalization nuisance parameters is unclear: the text states that a single freely floating parameter scales the total background in SR and CR, but also that the normalization of each individual background process is allowed to vary within uncertainties. Please clarify whether these are separate constrained nuisance parameters or a single parameter, and state the correlation assumptions between processes and data-taking years.
  5. [Section 6 (Results)] To support the claim that the limits are 'the most stringent to date', the paper should directly compare the present observed limits with the ATLAS results of Ref. [49] in the overlapping mass and width region, rather than only quoting the ATLAS ranges in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the signal prediction comes from an external simplified model, the background normalization is data-constrained in a standard CR+SR likelihood, and no claimed result reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are a background-only observation and 95% CL upper limits on sigma(pp -> ttZ')B(Z' -> tt). The signal template is generated from an external simplified model (Ref. [44]) with fixed couplings and widths, and the observed limits are obtained by fitting that external signal hypothesis plus a data-constrained background to the m_rec(Z') distribution. The background normalization in the signal region is constrained by a zero-b-tag control region through a single freely floating parameter correlated between SR and CR; this is a standard calibration step that does not predetermine the signal limit, since the signal enters only through its own independent shape and normalization. The CR-to-SR transfer is validated in simulation, but that is a systematic-assumption concern, not circularity: no equation in the paper defines the predicted limit in terms of the fitted background parameter, and the signal cross section is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [48, 90]) are for selection similarity and tagger corrections, not load-bearing uniqueness or definitional claims. The comparison to ATLAS Ref. [49] is an external benchmark. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central limits rest on the simplified model assumptions (couplings, branching fraction, production mode) and on the CR-to-SR background transfer. No new entities are introduced; the Z' is taken from Ref. [44]. The only fitted quantity in the likelihood is the overall background normalization, which is standard for this analysis strategy.

free parameters (1)
  • Background normalization scale factor = not quoted (profiled in fit)
    A freely floating parameter correlated between SR and CR in the simultaneous maximum likelihood fit (Section 4); it absorbs residual normalization differences between data and simulation. The final limits depend on its fitted value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The top-philic Z' is described by Eq. (1): a color-singlet vector boson coupling only to top quarks, with theta=pi/4 (no axial component) and B(Z' to tt)=100%.
    The signal samples and the theory curve in Fig. 4 are generated from this simplified model [44]; the quoted cross-section limits and mass bounds are model-dependent.
  • domain assumption Only tree-level ttZ' production is included; loop-level production modes are neglected.
    Section 1 states 'we only consider the former to minimize model dependence'; Ref. [67] is cited to argue the Z' + jet loop process is forbidden for theta=pi/4. This choice sets the predicted signal kinematics and cross section.
  • domain assumption The zero-b-tagged control region reproduces the SR background shape and composition.
    Section 4: the CR is defined with all selections except zero b-tagged jets; consistency with the SR is checked only with simulated samples, and a single floating normalization transfers the CR constraint to the SR.
  • domain assumption Standard detector, trigger, PDF, and MC-to-data correction inputs (NNPDF, GEANT4, ParticleNet scale factors) describe the observed data within assigned uncertainties.
    Sections 2 and 5; these are the usual experimental inputs, each assigned a nuisance parameter in the fit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for a top-philic Z' boson decaying into a $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ pair in a final state with jets and an electron or muon in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMJJVHBC

@misc{pith2026260801251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for a top-philic Z' boson decaying into a $\mathrmt\bart$ pair in a final state with jets and an electron or muon in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts$ = 13.6 TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMJJVHBC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01251}
}
abstract

A search for a top-philic Z' boson in a final state with jets and an electron or muon is presented. The search is based on a sample of proton-proton collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC during 2016$-$2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The top-philic Z' boson is produced in association with a top-antitop quark pair ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) and decays into a $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ pair, as it couples exclusively to top quarks. The analysis aims to identify a heavy Z' boson that produces Lorentz-boosted top quarks, whose hadronic decay products are merged into large-radius jets. A machine-learning algorithm is employed to identify such jets. The distribution of the invariant mass of the two top quark candidates with the highest transverse momentum is used as the discriminant variable in a Z' boson mass range of 0.5$-$3 TeV, with intrinsic widths of 4, 10, 20, and 50% relative to its mass. The results obtained are found to be in agreement with the standard model background prediction. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the production cross section of the Z' boson, for each of the decay widths as a function of its mass. These results represent the most stringent constraints to date on the existence of a top-philic Z' boson.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The cross section for this production mechanism is independent of the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prefit distributions of mrec Z′ for the expected background (stacked histograms), data (black points), and two Z′ signal hypotheses with a mass of 1 TeV and ΓZ′/mZ′ = 4 (solid black line) or 50% (dashed black line) for events in the electron (left) and muon (right) channels of the CR. Both signal hypotheses are normalized to a cross section of 0.1 pb. The hatched band in the upper panels represents the total uncerta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Postfit distributions of mrec Z′ for the expected background (stacked histograms), data (black points), and two Z′ signal hypotheses with a mass of 1 TeV and ΓZ′/mZ′ = 4 (solid black line) or 50% (dashed black line) for events in the electron (left) and muon (right) channels of the SR (upper row) and CR (lower row). Both signal hypotheses are normalized to a cross section of 0.1 pb. The hatched band in the upper pan… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed (black points) and expected (dashed red line) upper limits on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Search for a resonance in events with four top quarks decaying into two leptons and jets in proton-proton collisions

    hep-ex 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    No significant excess is observed in a search for top-philic resonances in four-top-quark events with two leptons, and 95% confidence-level upper limits are set for mediator masses from 500 GeV to 4 TeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [44]

    Probing TeV scale top-philic resonances with boosted top-tagging at the High Luminosity LHC

    J. H. Kim, K. Kong, S. J. Lee, and G. Mohlabeng, “Probing TeV scale top-philic resonances with boosted top-tagging at the High Luminosity LHC”,Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 035023,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.035023,arXiv:1604.07421

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    TeV strings and collider probes of large extra dimensions

    S. Cullen, M. Perelstein, and M. E. Peskin, “TeV strings and collider probes of large extra dimensions”,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 055012,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.055012, arXiv:hep-ph/0001166

    arXiv 2000

  3. [2]

    Low-energy phenomenology of superstring-inspired E(6) models

    J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, “Low-energy phenomenology of superstring-inspired E(6) models”,Phys. Rept.183(1989) 193,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90071-9. 12

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90071-9 1989

  4. [3]

    Excited quark and lepton production at hadron colliders

    U. Baur, M. Spira, and P . M. Zerwas, “Excited quark and lepton production at hadron colliders”,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 815,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.815

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.42.815 1990

  5. [4]

    Chiral color: An alternative to the standard model

    P . H. Frampton and S. L. Glashow, “Chiral color: An alternative to the standard model”, Phys. Lett. B190(1987) 157,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90859-8 1987

  6. [5]

    Production of massive color-octet vector bosons at next-to-leading order

    R. S. Chivukula, A. Farzinnia, E. H. Simmons, and R. Foadi, “Production of massive color-octet vector bosons at next-to-leading order”,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 054005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.054005,arXiv:1111.7261

    arXiv 2012

  7. [6]

    Coloron phenomenology

    E. H. Simmons, “Coloron phenomenology”,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 1678, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.1678,arXiv:hep-ph/9608269

    arXiv 1997

  8. [7]

    Colored resonant signals at the LHC: Largest rate and simplest topology

    T. Han, I. Lewis, and Z. Liu, “Colored resonant signals at the LHC: Largest rate and simplest topology”,JHEP12(2010) 085,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2010)085, arXiv:1010.4309

    arXiv 2010

Show all 104 references
  1. [8]

    The phenomenology of extra neutral gauge bosons

    A. Leike, “The phenomenology of extra neutral gauge bosons”,Phys. Rept.317(1999) 143,doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00133-1,arXiv:hep-ph/9805494

    1999 arXiv

  2. [9]

    The physics of heavy Z′ gauge bosons

    P . Langacker, “The physics of heavy Z′ gauge bosons”,Rev. Mod. Phys.81(2009) 1199, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1199,arXiv:0801.1345

    2009 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Composite models for quarks and leptons

    H. Harari, “Composite models for quarks and leptons”,Phys. Rep.104(1984) 159, doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90207-2

    1984 doi

  4. [11]

    Composite models of leptons

    O. W. Greenberg and C. A. Nelson, “Composite models of leptons”,Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 2567,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2567

    1974 doi

  5. [12]

    Are quarks composite?

    J. C. Pati, A. Salam, and J. A. Strathdee, “Are quarks composite?”,Phys. Lett. B59(1975) 265,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90042-8

    1975 doi

  6. [13]

    Hunting for heavy composite Majorana neutrinos at the LHC

    R. Leonardi et al., “Hunting for heavy composite Majorana neutrinos at the LHC”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 593,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4396-y, arXiv:1510.07988

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    A natural left-right symmetry

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “A natural left-right symmetry”,Phys. Rev. D11(1975) 2558,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2558

    1975 doi

  8. [15]

    Majorana neutrinos and the production of the right-handed charged gauge boson

    W.-Y. Keung and G. Senjanovi´c, “Majorana neutrinos and the production of the right-handed charged gauge boson”,Phys. Rev. Lett.50(1983) 1427, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1427

    1983 doi

  9. [16]

    Distinguishing Dirac/Majorana sterile neutrinos at the LHC

    C. O. Dib, C. S. Kim, K. Wang, and J. Zhang, “Distinguishing Dirac/Majorana sterile neutrinos at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 013005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.013005,arXiv:1605.01123

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lepton-number violation: Seesaw models and their collider tests

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li, and R. Ruiz, “Lepton-number violation: Seesaw models and their collider tests”,Front. in Phys.6(2018) 40,doi:10.3389/fphy.2018.00040, arXiv:1711.02180

    2018

  11. [18]

    Composite leptoquarks at the LHC

    B. Gripaios, “Composite leptoquarks at the LHC”,JHEP02(2010) 045, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)045,arXiv:0910.1789. References 13

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Searching for exclusive leptoquarks with the Nambu–Jona–Lasinio composite model at the LHC and HL-LHC

    S. Ajmal et al., “Searching for exclusive leptoquarks with the Nambu–Jona–Lasinio composite model at the LHC and HL-LHC”,JHEP08(2024) 176, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)176,arXiv:2311.18472

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC

    M. Kramer, T. Plehn, M. Spira, and P . M. Zerwas, “Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC”,Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 057503, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.057503,arXiv:hep-ph/0411038

    2005 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders

    I. Dor ˇsner et al., “Physics of leptoquarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders”,Phys. Rept.641(2016) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.001, arXiv:1603.04993

    2016 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Probing a Z ′ with non-universal fermion couplings through top quark fusion, decays to bottom quarks, and machine learning techniques

    D. Barbosa et al., “Probing a Z ′ with non-universal fermion couplings through top quark fusion, decays to bottom quarks, and machine learning techniques”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 413,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11506-x,arXiv:2210.15813

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Novel collider and dark matter phenomenology of a top-philic Z ′

    P . Cox, A. D. Medina, T. S. Ray, and A. Spray, “Novel collider and dark matter phenomenology of a top-philic Z ′ ”,JHEP06(2016) 110, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2016)110,arXiv:1512.00471

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Top quark mediated dark matter

    Y. Zhang, “Top quark mediated dark matter”,Phys. Lett. B720(2013) 137, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.063,arXiv:1212.2730

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Top-philic scalar dark matter with a vector-like fermionic top partner

    S. Baek, P . Ko, and P . Wu, “Top-philic scalar dark matter with a vector-like fermionic top partner”,JHEP10(2016) 117,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)117, arXiv:1606.00072

    2016 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A comprehensive approach to dark matter studies: Exploration of simplified top-philic models

    C. Arina et al., “A comprehensive approach to dark matter studies: Exploration of simplified top-philic models”,JHEP11(2016) 111, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)111,arXiv:1605.09242

    2016 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Scalar simplified models for dark matter

    M. R. Buckley, D. Feld, and D. Goncalves, “Scalar simplified models for dark matter”, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 015017,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.015017, arXiv:1410.6497

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Signatures of top flavour-changing dark matter

    J. D’Hondt et al., “Signatures of top flavour-changing dark matter”,JHEP03(2016) 060,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)060,arXiv:1511.07463

    2016 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Fermionic UV completions of composite Higgs models

    G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, “Fermionic UV completions of composite Higgs models”, JHEP03(2014) 077,doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)077,arXiv:1312.5330

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    A dangerous irrelevant UV-completion of the composite Higgs

    L. Vecchi, “A dangerous irrelevant UV-completion of the composite Higgs”,JHEP02 (2017) 094,doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)094,arXiv:1506.00623

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests

    K. Agashe, A. Delgado, M. J. May, and R. Sundrum, “RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests”,JHEP08(2003) 050,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/08/050, arXiv:hep-ph/0308036

    2003 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Higgs boson origin from a gauge symmetric theory of massive composite particles and massless W± and Z0 bosons at the TeV scale

    S.-S. Xue, “Higgs boson origin from a gauge symmetric theory of massive composite particles and massless W± and Z0 bosons at the TeV scale”,Nucl. Phys. B990(2023) 116168,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116168,arXiv:2210.04825

    2023

  26. [33]

    The minimal composite Higgs model

    K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, “The minimal composite Higgs model”,Nucl. Phys. B719(2005) 165,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.04.035, arXiv:hep-ph/0412089. 14

    2005 arXiv

  27. [34]

    The littlest Higgs

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson, “The littlest Higgs”,JHEP 07(2002) 034,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/034,arXiv:hep-ph/0206021

    2002 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Top quark compositeness: Feasibility and implications

    A. Pomarol and J. Serra, “Top quark compositeness: Feasibility and implications”,Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 074026,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074026,arXiv:0806.3247

    2008 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Top-philic Z′ forces at the LHC

    P . J. Fox, I. Low, and Y. Zhang, “Top-philic Z′ forces at the LHC”,JHEP03(2018) 074, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)074,arXiv:1801.03505

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Why is the top quark much heavier than other fermions?

    S.-S. Xue, “Why is the top quark much heavier than other fermions?”,Phys. Lett. B721 (2013) 347,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.034,arXiv:1301.4254

    2013 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Probing top-antitop resonances with t¯t scattering at LHC14

    D. Liu and R. Mahbubani, “Probing top-antitop resonances with t¯t scattering at LHC14”, JHEP04(2016) 116,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)116,arXiv:1511.09452

    2016 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A heavy neutral gauge boson near the Z boson mass pole via third generation fermions at the LHC

    M. Abdullah et al., “A heavy neutral gauge boson near the Z boson mass pole via third generation fermions at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B803(2020) 135326, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135326,arXiv:1912.00102

    2020

  33. [40]

    Phenomenology at the LHC of composite particles from strongly interacting standard model fermions via four-fermion operators of NJL type

    R. Leonardi et al., “Phenomenology at the LHC of composite particles from strongly interacting standard model fermions via four-fermion operators of NJL type”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 309,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7822-0, arXiv:1810.11420

    2020 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Naturalness-motivated composite Higgs model for generating the top Yukawa coupling

    Y. Chung, “Naturalness-motivated composite Higgs model for generating the top Yukawa coupling”,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 095021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.095021,arXiv:2309.00072

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Naturalness: Past, present, and future

    N. Craig, “Naturalness: Past, present, and future”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 825, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11928-7,arXiv:2205.05708

    2023 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Naturally speaking: The naturalness criterion and physics at the LHC

    G. F. Giudice, “Naturally speaking: The naturalness criterion and physics at the LHC”, p. 155. World Scientific, 2008.doi:10.1142/9789812779762_0010

    2008 doi

  37. [45]

    Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 496, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11573-0,arXiv:2303.15061. [Erratum: doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12458-6]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Observation of four top quark production in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of four top quark production in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B847(2023) 138290, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138290,arXiv:2305.13439

    2023

  39. [47]

    Measurement of the t ¯tt¯t production cross section in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the t ¯tt¯t production cross section in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP11(2021) 118, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)118,arXiv:2106.11683

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Evidence for four-top quark production in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for four-top quark production in proton-proton collisions at√s=13 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B844(2023) 138076, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138076,arXiv:2303.03864. References 15

    2023

  41. [49]

    Search for top-philic heavy resonances in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for top-philic heavy resonances in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 157, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12318-9,arXiv:2304.01678

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    ParticleNet: Jet tagging via particle clouds

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, “ParticleNet: Jet tagging via particle clouds”,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 056019,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019,arXiv:1902.08570

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026. doi:https://doi.org/10.17182/hepdata.158370

    2026 doi

  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]

    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

  47. [55]

    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

  48. [56]

    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

  49. [57]

    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

  50. [58]

    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

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    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

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    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

  55. [63]

    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. 16

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the standard model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle

    C. Degrande, “Automatic evaluation of UV and R2 terms for beyond the standard model Lagrangians: a proof-of-principle”,Comput. Phys. Commun.197(2015) 239, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.08.015,arXiv:1406.3030

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    CP Violation

    G. C. Branco, L. Lavoura, and J. P . Silva, “CP Violation”, volume 103 ofInternational Series of Monographs on Physics. Clarandon Press, Oxford, 1999

    1999

  58. [66]

    UFO - the universal FeynRules output

    C. Degrande et al., “UFO - the universal FeynRules output”,Comput. Phys. Commun. 183(2012) 1201,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022,arXiv:1108.2040

    2012 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Model-independent production of a top-philic resonance at the LHC

    N. Greiner et al., “Model-independent production of a top-philic resonance at the LHC”,JHEP04(2015) 029,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)029,arXiv:1410.6099

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    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

    2004 arXiv

  61. [69]

    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

    2007 arXiv

  62. [70]

    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

    2010 arXiv

  63. [71]

    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

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation

    M. Beneke, P . Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn, “Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation”,Nucl. Phys. B855(2012) 695, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.10.021,arXiv:1109.1536

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation

    M. Cacciari et al., “Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation”,Phys. Lett. B710(2012) 612, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.03.013,arXiv:1111.5869

    2012 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Percent-level-precision physics at the Tevatron: Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to qq→t t+X

    P . B¨arnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov, “Percent-level-precision physics at the Tevatron: Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to qq→t t+X”,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 132001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.132001, arXiv:1204.5201

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: The all-fermionic scattering channels

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: The all-fermionic scattering channels”,JHEP12(2012) 054, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2012)054,arXiv:1207.0236

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: The quark-gluon reaction

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, “NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: The quark-gluon reaction”,JHEP01(2013) 080,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2013)080, arXiv:1210.6832

    2013 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders throughO(α 4 s )

    M. Czakon, P . Fiedler, and A. Mitov, “Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders throughO(α 4 s )”,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 252004, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004,arXiv:1303.6254. References 17

    2013 arXiv

  70. [78]

    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

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    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

  72. [80]

    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

  73. [81]

    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

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

    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

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots

    CMS Collaboration, “ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020

    2016

  77. [85]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    2008 arXiv

  78. [86]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2,arXiv:1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  79. [87]

    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

  80. [88]

    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

  81. [89]

    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

  82. [90]

    Machine learning-based identification of highly Lorentz-boosted hadronically decaying particles at the CMS experiment

    CMS Collaboration, “Machine learning-based identification of highly Lorentz-boosted hadronically decaying particles at the CMS experiment”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-18-002, 2019

    2019

  83. [91]

    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

  84. [92]

    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

  85. [93]

    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. 18

    2018

  86. [94]

    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

  87. [95]

    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

  88. [96]

    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

  89. [97]

    Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra

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

    2011 arXiv

  90. [98]

    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

    1999 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Presentation of search results: the CL s technique

    A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CL s technique”, inDurham IPPP Workshop: Advanced Statistical T echniques in Particle Physics, p. 2693. Durham, UK, March,

  92. [100]

    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

  93. [101]

    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

  94. [102]

    The ROOFITtoolkit for data modeling

    W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby, “The ROOFITtoolkit for data modeling”, inProc. 13th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2003): La Jolla CA, United States, March 24–28, 2003. 2003.arXiv:physics/0306116. [eConf C0303241 (2003) MOLT007]

    2003 arXiv

  95. [103]

    The ROOSTATSproject

    L. Moneta et al., “The ROOSTATSproject”, inProc. 13th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis T echniques in Physics Research (ACAT 2010): Jaipur, India, February 22–27, 2010. 2010.arXiv:1009.1003. [PoS (ACAT2010) 057]. doi:10.22323/1.093.0057. 19 A The CMS C...

    2010 arXiv

  96. [2002]

    [J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693].doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313

    2002 doi

Pith tools

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