Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 104 references

"They Aren't Built For Me": An Exploratory Study of Strategies for Measurement of Graphical Primitives in Tactile Graphics

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper tries to establish that data-chart design rules derived from visual-perception experiments do not automatically transfer to tactile graphics: a replication of the classic Cleveland-and-McGill graphical-perception ranking with ele

desk verdict The submission is un-reviewable as-is: the supplied full text is an unrelated high-energy physics thesis, so none of the tactile graphics study's evidence is actually present. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14289 v1 pith:ZJJT5OX7 submitted 2025-08-19 cs.HC

Areen Khalaila , Lane Harrison , Nam Wook Kim , Dylan Cashman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords tactilegraphicsgraphicalperceptionClevelandandMcGillblindlow-visionaccessibilityswell-formprintingdatavisualizationchartencodingstouch
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 tries to establish that data-chart design rules derived from experiments on visual perception may not fit the tactile charts that blind and low-vision readers explore by hand. Using eleven BLV participants and swell-form printing, the authors replicate the classic Cleveland-and-McGill graphical perception ranking, then interview the group about how they actually measure values from four common chart types. They find that vision-derived encodings are useful but incomplete: participants wanted encodings designed explicitly for touch. From the gaps between what chart designs assume and what tactile perception offers, the paper derives a set of guidelines for tactile graphics. Sourcing note: the full text supplied with this record is an unrelated physics dissertation, so this pith rests on the abstract; that limits how far the method and results can be checked here.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the graphical-perception paradigm of Cleveland and McGill: an empirical ranking of elementary chart encodings by how accurately people can judge the values they encode. The paper's move is to transfer that ranking task from the visual system to the tactile system, using swell-form printing to render position, length, slope, and angle as raised surfaces, and to pair the quantitative replication with a qualitative group interview on measurement strategies. The paradigm supplies the vocabulary of encodings; the interview supplies the tactile-specific measurement strategies; together they produce the claimed gap analysis and guidelines.

What would settle it

Measure the physical fidelity of the swell-form prints (raised-line width and height, dot grain, and relief against the intended values), then run the same measurement tasks with a larger and more diverse BLV sample, comparing vision-derived encodings against tactile-specific ones. If print distortions track the observed difficulty differences, or if readers are as fast and accurate with vision-derived encodings as with tactile-specific ones, the claim that visual guidelines are mismatched to touch would be undercut.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that design guidelines inherited from experiments on visual perception are not automatically suited to tactile perception. The paper tests this by replicating the classic Cleveland-and-McGill graphical perception study — an empirical ranking of how accurately people judge values from encodings like position, length, slope, and angle — replacing the visual display with swell-form tactile printing and eleven blind or low-vision participants, and pairing the quantitative tasks with a group interview about strategies for reading four common chart types. The result is qualified: vision-derived encodings are not useless, but participants wanted encodi

Load-bearing premise

The findings assume swell-form printing reproduces chart primitives faithfully enough that measurement difficulty reflects tactile perception rather than the medium's fidelity, and that eleven participants in one group interview capture the range of BLV reading strategies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated visual-to-tactile conversion pipelines should select encodings from tactile perceptual evidence instead of literally copying vision-tuned chart layouts.
  • Charts whose readability rests on visual rankings (position, slope, angle) may need structurally different tactile designs in the places the paper's gap analysis identifies.
  • The tactile replication of the ranking task gives accessibility designers an evidence base for choosing encodings in swell-form and refreshable-tactile output.
  • The guidelines provide concrete targets for evaluating tactile chart tools with BLV users, using the measured strategies as a vocabulary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mismatch is likely worse for slope and angle encodings than for position along a shared scale, since touch has coarser angular resolution than vision; a direct within-study comparison of judgment error across encodings would test this.
  • The documented measurement strategies (counting, tracing, finger-width units) could themselves be ranked by accuracy and speed, producing a tactile analogue of the visual encoding ranking.
  • A controlled follow-up with refreshable tactile displays alongside swell-form paper would separate medium-fidelity effects from genuine perceptual effects — the study's weakest link.
  • A testable extension: if BLV readers genuinely prefer tactile-specific encodings, charts converted through tactile-aware rules should show measurable accuracy or speed gains over literal visual-to-tactile copies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The abstract describes an exploratory study of measurement strategies for graphical primitives in tactile graphics, replicating the Cleveland and McGill graphical-perception paradigm with eleven blind or low-vision (BLV) participants using swell-form printing, supplemented by a group interview. The paper claims that visual-perception-derived encoding guidelines may not transfer to tactile perception, reports that familiar encodings are nevertheless useful, and proposes design guidelines for tactile graphics. The full text supplied with the submission, however, is a high-energy physics dissertation titled "Search for a Heavy-Philic W' Boson Using Proton-Proton Collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV Using the ATLAS Detector." It contains no methods, stimuli, tasks, participant information, quantitative results, interview data, or guidelines related to the tactile graphics study. The central claims of the abstract therefore have no evidentiary support within the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If properly reported, the study would address an important and understudied question: whether visual graphical-perception findings transfer to tactile perception, with direct implications for accessible data visualization. The abstract promises both an empirical replication and design guidelines, which would be a useful contribution to HCI and accessibility research. However, the submitted manuscript does not contain the study. There are no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or analysis artifacts in the submission; the only linked artifact is an OSF URL in the abstract, which is not evaluated here. As submitted, the potential significance cannot be assessed because the evidence is absent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text (entire body)] The submitted full text is an unrelated physics dissertation on a W' boson search, with no overlap with the tactile graphics study described in the abstract. There is no methods section, no stimulus description, no participant recruitment details, no measurement tasks, no quantitative results, no interview data, and no statement of the proposed design guidelines. The central empirical claims of the abstract—that Cleveland-McGill rankings partly transfer to tactile perception and that tactile-specific strategies are preferred—therefore have no in-submission evidentiary basis. This is not a presentation issue but a load-bearing absence: the claims cannot be evaluated or falsified from this manuscript.
  2. [Abstract, swell-form fidelity] Even taking the abstract as the full report, no calibration or validation of the swell-form reproduction of position, length, slope, angle, line width, or dot grain is reported. The study's strong conclusion—that observed difficulty is a property of tactile perception rather than of the rendering medium—requires ruling out medium-induced distortion. Without fidelity validation, the conclusion conflates perceptual mismatch with print artifact, undermining internal validity.
  3. [Abstract, expected guidelines] The abstract promises 'a set of guidelines for the design of tactile graphics that accounts for these gaps,' but no guidelines are stated or derived anywhere in the submitted manuscript. The guidelines are the study's practical output; without their content or supporting evidence, the contribution is incomplete.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions supplemental material at an OSF URL, but the manuscript body does not describe what is deposited (e.g., stimuli, raw measurements, transcripts, analysis scripts). A pointer in the body with a description of the deposited materials would be needed if the correct manuscript were resubmitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the tactile-graphics abstract reports an empirical study whose guidelines are self-grounded in its own data, and the supplied full text is an unrelated physics dissertation, which is a missing-evidence issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: (1) visual encoding guidelines from Cleveland and McGill; (2) hypothesis that they may not transfer to tactile perception; (3) replication study with 11 BLV subjects measuring graphical primitives; (4) group interview of reading strategies; (5) guidelines accounting for perceptual gaps. Each link is empirical. The guidelines are explicitly "Based on this study," meaning they summarize the study's own findings — self-grounding is standard for exploratory design research and does not constitute a logical reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. No equation, fitted parameter, or prediction is relabeled. The strongest claim (visual design guidelines may not suit tactile perception) is an empirical hypothesis tested against new data, not an analytic consequence of the study's assumptions. The supplied full text (arXiv:2508.14293) is a high-energy physics dissertation on a W' boson search, entirely unrelated to the tactile graphics abstract. Consequently the methods, stimuli, task data, error rates, participant demographics, and interview transcripts that would support or falsify the central claim are absent from this submission. That is a completeness/evidence-availability problem, but missing evidence is not circular reasoning. Concerns about swell-form print fidelity, the 11-subject sample, and representativeness are correctness risks, not circularity, and are therefore not scored here. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears in the provided materials. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central findings are empirical. Because only the abstract was available, the ledger is limited to the premises visible in it: the Cleveland-McGill benchmark transfer, tactile print fidelity, and the sufficiency of the sample and interview for the stated guidelines. No free parameters or invented entities are visible at this level.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Cleveland and McGill's perceptual ranking of visual encodings is the correct benchmark for encoding accuracy in charts.
    The study 'replicates the Cleveland and McGill study on graphical perception' (abstract), importing the paradigm's stimulus definitions and accuracy rankings from vision into the tactile modality.
  • domain assumption Swell form printing renders chart primitives (position, length, slope, angle) at sufficiently high fidelity for measurement.
    The abstract states the study converts visual representations 'directly to tactile representations' via swell-form printing; if print fidelity distorts primitives, observed errors are confounded with perception.
  • domain assumption Eleven BLV subjects plus one group interview are sufficient to identify strategies and ground design guidelines.
    The abstract characterizes the design as exploratory and derives 'a set of guidelines' from it; sample sufficiency and representativeness are not documented in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "They Aren't Built For Me": An Exploratory Study of Strategies for Measurement of Graphical Primitives in Tactile Graphics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJJT5OX7

@misc{pith2026250814289,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "They Aren't Built For Me": An Exploratory Study of Strategies for Measurement of Graphical Primitives in Tactile Graphics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJJT5OX7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14289}
}
read the original abstract

Advancements in accessibility technologies such as low-cost swell form printers or refreshable tactile displays promise to allow blind or low-vision (BLV) people to analyze data by transforming visual representations directly to tactile representations. However, it is possible that design guidelines derived from experiments on the visual perception system may not be suited for the tactile perception system. We investigate the potential mismatch between familiar visual encodings and tactile perception in an exploratory study into the strategies employed by BLV people to measure common graphical primitives converted to tactile representations. First, we replicate the Cleveland and McGill study on graphical perception using swell form printing with eleven BLV subjects. Then, we present results from a group interview in which we describe the strategies used by our subjects to read four common chart types. While our results suggest that familiar encodings based on visual perception studies can be useful in tactile graphics, our subjects also expressed a desire to use encodings designed explicitly for BLV people. Based on this study, we identify gaps between the perceptual expectations of common charts and the perceptual tools available in tactile perception. Then, we present a set of guidelines for the design of tactile graphics that accounts for these gaps. Supplemental material is available at https://osf.io/3nsfp/?view_only=7b7b8dcbae1d4c9a8bb4325053d13d9f.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ObservationofanewparticleinthesearchfortheStandardModel Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLASCollaboration. “ObservationofanewparticleinthesearchfortheStandardModel Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”. in:����� ����� �716 (2012), p. 1. 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020. arXiv: 1207.7214�������� (cit. on p. 1)

    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”. in: ����� ����� � 716.1 (2012), 30–61. ����: 0370-2693. {10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021} (cit. on p. 1)

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 2012

  3. [3]

    Characterising the Higgs boson with ATLAS data from the LHC Run-2

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Characterising the Higgs boson with ATLAS data from the LHC Run-2”. In: ������� �������1116 (2025). Breaking boundaries — ATLAS physics highlights and milestones from the LHC Run 2, pp. 4–56. ����: 0370-1573. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.001. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S037015732400382X (cit. on p. 1)

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.001 2025

  4. [4]

    Electroweak, QCD and flavour physics studies with ATLAS data from Run 2 of the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Electroweak, QCD and flavour physics studies with ATLAS data from Run 2 of the LHC”. in:������� �������1116 (2025). Breaking boundaries — ATLAS physics highlights and milestones from the LHC Run 2, pp. 57–126.����: 0370-1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.003. https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0370157324...

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.12.003 2025

  5. [5]

    Climbing to the Top of the ATLAS 13 TeV data

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Climbing to the Top of the ATLAS 13 TeV data”. In:������� �������1116 (2025). Breaking boundaries — ATLAS physics highlights and milestones from the LHC Run 2, pp. 127–183.����: 0370-1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2024.12.004. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157324004307 (cit. on p. 1)

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep 2025

  6. [6]

    ATLAS searches for additional scalars and exotic Higgs bo- son decays with the LHC Run 2 dataset

    ATLAS Collaboration. “ATLAS searches for additional scalars and exotic Higgs bo- son decays with the LHC Run 2 dataset”. In: ������� �������1116 (2025). Break- ing boundaries — ATLAS physics highlights and milestones from the LHC Run 2, pp. 184–260. ����: 0370-1573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.002. https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.002 2025

  7. [7]

    The quest to discover supersymmetry at the ATLAS experi- ment

    ATLAS Collaboration. “The quest to discover supersymmetry at the ATLAS experi- ment”. In: ������� �������1116 (2025). Breaking boundaries — ATLAS physics high- lights and milestones from the LHC Run 2, pp. 261–300. ����: 0370-1573. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.010. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0370157324003338 (cit. on p. 1)

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.09.010 2025

  8. [8]

    ����������� �� ��� ����������� ��������� ����� ��� � �������� ������������� ��� ������ ������ ������ ��� �������� �����

    ATLAS Collaboration. ����������� �� ��� ����������� ��������� ����� ��� � �������� ������������� ��� ������ ������ ������ ��� �������� �����. 2024. arXiv: 2403.09292 ��������. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09292 (cit. on pp. 1, 2)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    RotationoftheAndromedaNebulafromaSpectroscopic 81 Survey of Emission Regions

    VeraC.RubinandW.KentFord. “RotationoftheAndromedaNebulafromaSpectroscopic 81 Survey of Emission Regions”. In: ������������� �������159 (1970), p. 379. 10.1086/ 150317 (cit. on p. 1)

    1970

  2. [10]

    Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC 2885(R=122kpc)

    Vera C. Rubin, W. Kent Ford, and Norbert Thonnard. “Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC 2885(R=122kpc)”. In: ������������� �������238(1980),pp.471–487. 10.1086/158003 (cit. on p. 1)

    1980 doi

  3. [11]

    Physics and Reality

    Albert Einstein. “Physics and Reality”. In:������� �� ��� �������� ���������221.3 (1936), pp. 349–382 (cit. on p. 1)

    1936

  4. [12]

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sci- ences

    Eugene P. Wigner. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sci- ences”. In: �������������� �� ���� ��� ������� �����������13.1 (1960), pp. 1–14 (cit. on p. 1)

    1960

  5. [13]

    ������������

    Robert Hooke. ������������. Royal Society, 1665 (cit. on p. 1)

  6. [14]

    Cathode Rays

    J. J. Thomson. “Cathode Rays”. In: ������������� ��������44 (1897), pp. 293–316 (cit. on p. 1)

  7. [15]

    DasElektronenmikroskop

    MaxKnollandErnstRuska. “DasElektronenmikroskop”. In: ����������� ��� ������78.5–6 (1932), pp. 318–339 (cit. on p. 1)

    1932

  8. [16]

    Griffiths

    David J. Griffiths. ������������ �� ���������� ���������. Wiley-VCH, 2008 (cit. on pp. 2, 13)

    2008

  9. [17]

    A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons

    Murray Gell-Mann. “A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons”. In:������� ������� 8.3 (1964), pp. 214–215 (cit. on p. 2)

    1964

  10. [18]

    ������ �� �������� ��� ��� ������� �� ���

    Anne-Mazarine Lyon. ������ �� �������� ��� ��� ������� �� ���. 2024. arXiv: 2406. 02010 ��������. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.02010 (cit. on p. 2)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Topflavor: aseparateSU(2)forthethirdfamily

    DavidJMullerandSatyanarayanNandi. “Topflavor: aseparateSU(2)forthethirdfamily”. In: ������� ������� �383.3 (Sept. 1996), pp. 345–350. ����: 0370-2693. 10.1016/ 0370-2693(96)00745-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00745-9 (cit. on p. 2)

    1996 doi

  12. [20]

    Resonances from two universal extra dimensions

    Gustavo Burdman, Bogdan A. Dobrescu, and Eduardo Pontón. “Resonances from two universal extra dimensions”. In: ����� ���� � 74 (7 Oct. 2006), p. 075008. 10.1103/ PhysRevD.74.075008. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.075008(cit.onp.2)

    2006 doi

  13. [22]

    Lepton number as the fourth

    Jogesh C. Pati and Abdus Salam. “Lepton number as the fourth "color"”. In:�������� ������ � 10.1 (1974), pp. 275–289. 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.275. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.10.275 (cit. on p. 2)

    1974 doi

  14. [23]

    Grand unification at intermediate mass scales through extra dimensions

    Keith R. Dienes, Emilian Dudas, and Tony Gherghetta. “Grand unification at intermediate mass scales through extra dimensions”. In: ������� ������� �537.1–3 (Jan. 1999), pp. 47–108. ����: 0550-3213. 10.1016/s0550-3213(98)00669-5. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/S0550-3213(98)00669-5...

    1999 doi

  15. [24]

    Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking

    Steven Weinberg. “Implications of dynamical symmetry breaking”. In:����� ���� � 13 (4 Feb. 1976), pp. 974–996. 10.1103/PhysRevD.13.974. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.13.974 (cit. on p. 2)

    1976 doi

  16. [25]

    Dynamical breaking of weak interaction symme- tries

    Estia Eichten and Kenneth Lane. “Dynamical breaking of weak interaction symme- tries”. In: ������� ������� �90.1 (1980), pp. 125–130. ����: 0370-2693. https: //doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(80)90065-9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0370269380900659 (cit. on p. 2)

    1980

  17. [26]

    Searchforvector-bosonresonancesdecayingintoatopquarkand abottomquarkusingppcollisionsat √𝑠=13TeVwiththeATLASdetector

    ATLASCollaboration. “Searchforvector-bosonresonancesdecayingintoatopquarkand abottomquarkusingppcollisionsat √𝑠=13TeVwiththeATLASdetector”. In: ������� �� ���� ������ �������2023.12 (Dec. 2023).����: 1029-8479. 10.1007/jhep12(2023)073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2023)073...

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

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

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Search for top-philic heavy resonances in pp collisions at√𝑠 = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector”. In: ��� �������� �������� ������� �84.2 (Feb. 2024). ����: 1434-6052. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12318-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-023-12318-9 (cit. on p. 2)

    2024 doi

  19. [28]

    Search for resonances produced in association with or decaying to a Z boson

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Search for resonances produced in association with or decaying to a Z boson”. In:�������� ������ �109.11 (June 2024). ����: 2470-0029. 10.1103/ physrevd.109.112008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112008(cit.onpp.3,14)

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    SearchforW’bosonsdecayingtoatopandabottomquarkinleptonic finalstatesinproton-protoncollisionsat √𝑠=13TeV

    CMScollaboration. “SearchforW’bosonsdecayingtoatopandabottomquarkinleptonic finalstatesinproton-protoncollisionsat √𝑠=13TeV”.in: ������� �� ���� ������ ������� 2024.5 (2024), p. 46. 10.1007/JHEP05(2024)046. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024) 046 (cit. on p. 3)

    2024 doi

  21. [30]

    Schroeder

    Michael Edward Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder. �� ������������ �� ������� ����� ������. Reading,USA:Addison-Wesley(1995)842p. WestviewPress,1995(cit.onp.6)

    1995

  22. [31]

    Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC”. in:���� ����� �� �83 (2023), p. 982. 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-023-11747-w. arXiv: 2212.09379�������� (cit. on pp. 7, 17, 23)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    UltravioletBehaviorofNon-AbelianGaugeTheories

    DavidJ.GrossandFrankWilczek. “UltravioletBehaviorofNon-AbelianGaugeTheories”. 83 In: ����� ���� �����30 (26 June 1973), pp. 1343–1346. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1343. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1343 (cit. on p. 7)

    1973 doi

  24. [33]

    b-initiated processes at the LHC: a reappraisal

    Fabio Maltoni, Giovanni Ridolfi, and Maria Ubiali. “b-initiated processes at the LHC: a reappraisal”. In: ������� �� ���� ������ �������2012.7 (July 2012).����: 1029-8479. 10.1007/jhep07(2012)022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2012)022 (cit. on p. 8)

    2012 doi

  25. [34]

    Review of Particle Physics

    S. Navas and et al. “Review of Particle Physics”. In:����� ���� � 110 (3 Oct. 2024), p. 030001. 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 110.030001 (cit. on pp. 10, 11)

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Combination of measurements of the top quark mass from data collected by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at√𝑠 = 7 and 8 TeV

    ATLAS & CMS Collaboration. “Combination of measurements of the top quark mass from data collected by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at√𝑠 = 7 and 8 TeV”. in: �������� ������ �������132.26 (2024), p. 261902. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.261902. arXiv: 2402.08713�������� (cit. on p. 10)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Direct top-quark decay width measurement in the𝑡¯𝑡 lepton+jets channel at√𝑠= 8 TeV with the ATLAS experiment

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Direct top-quark decay width measurement in the𝑡¯𝑡 lepton+jets channel at√𝑠= 8 TeV with the ATLAS experiment”. In:��� �������� �������� ������� � 78.2 (Feb. 2018). ����: 1434-6052. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5595-5. http://dx.doi. org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018...

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    Hadronization time of heavy quarks in nuclear matter

    Taesoo Song and Hamza Berrehrah. “Hadronization time of heavy quarks in nuclear matter”. In: �������� ������ �94.3(Sept.2016). ����: 2469-9993. 10.1103/physrevc.94. 034901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034901 (cit. on p. 10)

    2016 doi

  29. [38]

    ����������� �� � ������������� ����������� ���� ���𝑡¯𝑡 ���������� ��������� ��√𝑠 = 13 ��� 𝑝𝑝 ���������� ���� ��� ����� ��������

    ATLASCollaboration. ����������� �� � ������������� ����������� ���� ���𝑡¯𝑡 ���������� ��������� ��√𝑠 = 13 ��� 𝑝𝑝 ���������� ���� ��� ����� ��������. Tech. rep. Geneva: CERN, 2025. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2937636 (cit. on p. 11)

    2025

  30. [39]

    ����������� �� � ������������ ������ �� ��� ��� ����� ���� ���������� ���������

    CMSCollaboration. ����������� �� � ������������ ������ �� ��� ��� ����� ���� ���������� ���������. 2025. arXiv: 2503.22382��������. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22382 (cit. on p. 11)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Inclusiveanddifferentialcross-sectionsfordilepton 𝑡𝑡 production measured in√𝑠 = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLASCollaboration. “Inclusiveanddifferentialcross-sectionsfordilepton 𝑡𝑡 production measured in√𝑠 = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”. In:������� �� ���� ������ �������2023.7 (July 2023). ����: 1029-8479. 10.1007/jhep07(2023)141. http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(...

    2023 doi

  32. [41]

    Review of Particle Physics

    M. Tanabashi and et al. “Review of Particle Physics”. In:����� ���� �98 (3 Oct. 2018), p. 030001. 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.98. 030001 (cit. on p. 11)

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    R Brinkmann. “HERA”. in: (1989). 10.5170/CERN-1989-001.131. https://cds.cern.ch/ record/366965 (cit. on p. 12). 84

    1989 doi

  34. [43]

    ������ �������� �������

    Mark Thomson. ������ �������� �������. Section 8.5.1: Scaling violations. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 201–202. ����: 978-1-107- 03426-6 (cit. on p. 12)

    2013

  35. [44]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high- precision data from the LHC

    Tie-Jiun Hou et al. “New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high- precision data from the LHC”. in:����� ���� � 103.1 (2021), p. 014013. 10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.014013. arXiv: 1912.10053�������� (cit. on pp. 12, 13, 91)

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    LHCMachine

    LyndonEvansandPhilipBryant. “LHCMachine”. In: ����� 3(2008),S08001. 10.1088/ 1748-0221/3/08/S08001 (cit. on p. 17)

    2008

  37. [46]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics

    Glen Cowan et al. “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics”. In: ���� ����� �� �71 (2011), p. 1554. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0. arXiv: 1007.1727 ����������������� (cit.onpp.17,61–63,68). Erratum: in: ���� ����� �� �73(2013), p. 2501. 10.1140/epjc/s100...

    2011 arXiv

  38. [47]

    �������� ������������� ���� ��� ����� �������� �� ��� ���.2012

    ChiaraZampolli. �������� ������������� ���� ��� ����� �������� �� ��� ���.2012. arXiv: 1209.5637 ��������. https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.5637 (cit. on p. 18)

    2012 arXiv

  39. [48]

    ��� ���� �������� �� ��� ���.AlsopublishedbyCERNGenevain

    LHCbCollaboration. ��� ���� �������� �� ��� ���.AlsopublishedbyCERNGenevain

  40. [49]

    The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    ATLAS Collaboration. “The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”. In: ����� 3 (2008), S08003. 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08003 (cit. on p. 18)

    2008 doi

  41. [50]

    ������������ �� ��� ����� ����������

    ATLAS Collaboration. ������������ �� ��� ����� ����������. https://opendata.atlas. cern/docs/documentation/introduction/introduction_ATLAS. Accessed: 2025-05-03. n.d. (Cit. on p. 19)

    2025

  42. [51]

    How ATLAS detects particles: diagram of particle paths in the detector

    Joao Pequenao and Paul Schaffner. “How ATLAS detects particles: diagram of particle paths in the detector”. 2013. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1505342 (cit. on p. 20)

    2013

  43. [52]

    ����������� �� ��������� ������ �� ���������

    Mukund Gupta. ����������� �� ��������� ������ �� ���������. Tech. rep. Geneva: CERN,

  44. [53]

    OperationandperformanceoftheATLAStilecalorimeterinLHC Run 2

    ATLASCollaboration. “OperationandperformanceoftheATLAStilecalorimeterinLHC Run 2”. In: (2024). arXiv: 2401.16034�������� (cit. on p. 20)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    ����� ������ ����� ������������ ��������� ������ ������

    ATLAS Collaboration. ����� ������ ����� ������������ ��������� ������ ������. ATLAS-TDR-2; CERN-LHCC-96-041. 1996. https://cds.cern.ch/record/331061 (cit. on p. 20)

    1996

  46. [55]

    https://cds.cern.ch/record/1279627 (cit. on p. 20)

  47. [56]

    Measurement of the muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector using 2011 and 2012 LHC proton–proton collision data

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Measurement of the muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector using 2011 and 2012 LHC proton–proton collision data”. In:���� ����� �� �74 (2014), p. 3130. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3130-x. arXiv: 1407.3935�������� (cit. on p. 21)

    2011 arXiv

  48. [57]

    ����� ���� ������������ �������� �������� ��������� ������ ������

    ATLAS Collaboration. ����� ���� ������������ �������� �������� ��������� ������ ������. ATLAS-TDR-026; CERN-LHCC-2017-017. 2017. https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 2285580 (cit. on p. 21)

    2017

  49. [58]

    ����� ������ ����� ����������� ������� �������� ��������� ������ ������

    ATLAS Collaboration. ����� ������ ����� ����������� ������� �������� ��������� ������ ������. ATLAS-TDR-022; CERN-LHCC-2013-017. 2013. https://cds.cern.ch/ 85 record/1602230 (cit. on p. 20)

    2013

  50. [59]

    The ATLAS Tier-0: Overview and operational experience

    Markus Elsing et al. “The ATLAS Tier-0: Overview and operational experience”. In: ������� �� �������� ���������� ������219.7 (Apr.2010), p. 072011. 10.1088/1742-6596/ 219/7/072011. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/219/7/072011 (cit. on p. 23)

    2010 doi

  51. [60]

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

    J. Alwall et al. “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order dif- ferential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations”. In:���� 07 (2014), p. 079. 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079. arXiv: 1405.0301�������� (cit. on pp. 24, 37, 91)

    2014 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2”. In:����� ��� �� ���������������15.10 (Oct. 2020), P10004–P10004. ����: 1748-0221. 10. 1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10004 (cit. on p. 22)

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes)

    G. Corcella et al. “HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes)”. In:���� 01 (2001), p. 010. 10.1088/1126-6708/2001/01/010. arXiv: hep-ph/0011363 (cit. on p. 24)

    2001 arXiv

  54. [63]

    ������ – a simulation toolkit

    S. Agostinelli et al. “������ – a simulation toolkit”. In:����� �������� ����� � 506 (2003), p. 250. 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8 (cit. on p. 25)

    2003 doi

  55. [64]

    PYTHIA6.4physicsandmanual

    TorbjornSjöstrand,StephenMrenna,andPeterSkands. “PYTHIA6.4physicsandmanual”. In: ���� 05 (2006), p. 026. 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026. arXiv: hep-ph/0603175 (cit. on p. 24)

    2006 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector usingLHCRun2data

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector usingLHCRun2data”. In: ����� 19(2023),P02009. 10.1088/1748-0221/19/02/P02009. arXiv: 2309.05471�������� (cit. on p. 25)

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Studies of the muon momentum calibration and performance of 86 the ATLAS detector with𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠 = 13TeV

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Studies of the muon momentum calibration and performance of 86 the ATLAS detector with𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠 = 13TeV”. In: ���� ����� �� �83 (2023), p. 686. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11584-x. arXiv: 2212.07338�������� (cit. on p. 26)

    2023 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Electron and photon efficiencies in LHC Run 2 with the ATLAS experiment

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Electron and photon efficiencies in LHC Run 2 with the ATLAS experiment”. In: ���� 05(2024),p.162. 10.1007/JHEP05(2024)162. arXiv: 2308.13362 �������� (cit. on p. 25)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [68]

    The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algo- rithm

    Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. “The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algo- rithm”. In: ���� 04 (2008), p. 063. 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063. arXiv: 0802.1189 �������� (cit. on p. 26)

    2008 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Performance of Jet Vertex Tagger in suppression of pileup jets and𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠 𝑇 in ATLAS detector

    K G Tomiwa. “Performance of Jet Vertex Tagger in suppression of pileup jets and𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠 𝑇 in ATLAS detector”. In: ������� �� �������� ���������� ������802.1 (Jan. 2017), p.012012. 10.1088/1742-6596/802/1/012012. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/802/ 1/012012 (cit. on p. 26)

    2017 doi

  61. [70]

    Reconstruction,EnergyCalibration,andIdentificationofHadron- icallyDecayingTauLeptonsintheATLASExperimentforRun-2oftheLHC

    ATLASCollaboration. “Reconstruction,EnergyCalibration,andIdentificationofHadron- icallyDecayingTauLeptonsintheATLASExperimentforRun-2oftheLHC”.in: (2015) (cit. on p. 26)

    2015

  62. [71]

    Measurement of𝑡¯𝑡 and single top quark production in ATLAS experi- ment

    Mohammed Faraj. “Measurement of𝑡¯𝑡 and single top quark production in ATLAS experi- ment”. In: ��� LHCP2023 (2024), p. 013. 10.22323/1.450.0013 (cit. on p. 30)

    2024 doi

  63. [72]

    A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo al- gorithms

    Paolo Nason. “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo al- gorithms”. In: ���� 11 (2004), p. 040. 10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040. arXiv: hep-ph/0409146 (cit. on p. 32)

    2004 arXiv

  64. [73]

    ������������ ��� ������ ������� �� �����

    ATLAS Collaboration. ������������ ��� ������ ������� �� �����. 2025. arXiv: 2505. 19689 ��������. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19689 (cit. on p. 26)

    2025

  65. [74]

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

    Simone Alioli et al. “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”. in:���� 06 (2010), p. 043. 10.1007/ JHEP06(2010)043. arXiv: 1002.2581�������� (cit. on p. 32)

    2010 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Parton distributions for the LHC run II

    NNPDF Collaboration, Richard D. Ball, et al. “Parton distributions for the LHC run II”. in: ���� 04 (2015), p. 040. 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040. arXiv: 1410.8849�������� (cit. on pp. 32, 37)

    2015 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    Stefano Frixione, Paolo Nason, and Carlo Oleari. “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”. In:���� 11 (2007), p. 070. 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070. arXiv: 0709.2092�������� (cit. on p. 32)

    2007 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note

    Johannes Bellm et al. “Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note”. In:���� ����� �� �76.4 (2016), p. 196. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4018-8. arXiv: 1512.01178�������� (cit. on p. 32). 87

    2016 arXiv

  69. [78]

    MadGraph 5: going beyond

    Johan Alwall et al. “MadGraph 5: going beyond”. In:���� 06 (2011), p. 128. 10.1007/ JHEP06(2011)128. arXiv: 1106.0522�������� (cit. on p. 32)

    2011 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Automated parton-shower variations in PYTHIA 8

    S. Mrenna and P. Skands. “Automated parton-shower variations in PYTHIA 8”. In: ����� ���� � 94 (2016), p. 074005. 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.074005. arXiv: 1605.08352 �������� (cit. on p. 32)

    2016 arXiv

  71. [80]

    ������������ ��𝑡𝑡 ���������� ����� �������� ���� ��� ����� ���������� �� ��� ���.tech.rep.Geneva: CERN,2022

    ATLAS Collaboration. ������������ ��𝑡𝑡 ���������� ����� �������� ���� ��� ����� ���������� �� ��� ���.tech.rep.Geneva: CERN,2022. 10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.8.112. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2776941 (cit. on p. 33)

    2022

  72. [81]

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

    RikkertFrederix,EmanueleRe,andPaoloTorrielli. “Single-top 𝑡-channelhadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO”. in:���� 09 (2012), p. 130. 10.1007/JHEP09(2012)130. arXiv: 1207.5391�������� (cit. on p. 37)

    2012 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into top and bottom quarks at√𝑠 = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into top and bottom quarks at√𝑠 = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”. In:������� �� ���� ������ ������� 2021.6 (June 2021). ����: 1029-8479. 10.1007/jhep06(2021)145. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/JHEP06(2021)145 (cit. on...

    2021 doi

  74. [83]

    ������� �� ��������� ����� ����� ��������� ��� �������

    ATLAS Collaboration. ������� �� ��������� ����� ����� ��������� ��� �������. Tech. rep. Geneva: CERN, 2016. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2216168 (cit. on p. 37)

    2016

  75. [84]

    Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX

    H. B. Hartanto et al. “Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX”. in:�������� ������ �91.9 (May 2015). ����: 1550-2368. 10.1103/ physrevd.91.094003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.094003 (cit. on p. 37)

    2015 doi

  76. [85]

    Single-top hadroproduction in association with a𝑊 boson

    Stefano Frixione et al. “Single-top hadroproduction in association with a𝑊 boson”. In: ���� 07 (2008), p. 029. 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/029. arXiv: 0805.3067�������� (cit. on p. 37)

    2008 arXiv

  77. [86]

    ��������� �� ��� ��� ����

    Ashish Vaswani et al. ��������� �� ��� ��� ����. 2023. arXiv: 1706.03762 �������. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 (cit. on p. 46)

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Presentationofsearchresults: the 𝐶𝐿𝑆 technique

    AlexanderL.Read. “Presentationofsearchresults: the 𝐶𝐿𝑆 technique”. In: �� ����� �28 (2002), p. 2693. 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313 (cit. on pp. 61, 65)

    2002 doi

  79. [88]

    The binning algorithm used for binning for SR1 and SR2 is called TransfoD [89]

    is the software package that is used to implement the binned, maximum-likelihood fit. The binning algorithm used for binning for SR1 and SR2 is called TransfoD [89]. With the selected options for this analysis, this algorithm merges bins together, but enforces no more than 25%...

    2000

  80. [89]

    SPANet: Generalized permutationless set assignment for par- ticle physics using symmetry preserving attention

    Alexander Shmakov et al. “SPANet: Generalized permutationless set assignment for par- ticle physics using symmetry preserving attention”. In:������� �����12 (2022), p. 178. 10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.5.178. https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.12.5.178 (cit. on pp. 45–47)

    2022 doi

  81. [91]

    TRExFitter: Aframeworkforstatisticalmodelling,fitting,andlimitsetting

    T.Eschetal.“TRExFitter: Aframeworkforstatisticalmodelling,fitting,andlimitsetting”. In: ���� ����� �� �78 (2018), p. 874. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6306-2. arXiv: 1806. 11063 ����������������� (cit. on p. 61)

    2018 doi

  82. [92]

    Search for the production of a Higgs boson in association with top quarksanddecayingintoab-quarkpairandb-jetidentificationwiththeATLASexperiment atLHC

    Thomas P. Calvet. “Search for the production of a Higgs boson in association with top quarksanddecayingintoab-quarkpairandb-jetidentificationwiththeATLASexperiment atLHC”.https://hdl.handle.net/11244/50758. Ph.D.thesis. UniversityofOklahoma,2017 88 (cit. on p. 61)

    2017

  83. [93]

    Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collision data at√𝑠= 13 TeV

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collision data at√𝑠= 13 TeV”. in:��� �������� �������� ������� �76.5 (May 2016). ����: 1434-6052. 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4120-y. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1140/epjc/s10052-016-4120-y (cit...

    2016 doi

  84. [94]

    Jet energy scale measurements and their systematic uncertainties in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Jet energy scale measurements and their systematic uncertainties in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector”. In:����� ���� � 96 (2017), p. 072002. 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.072002. arXiv: 1703.09665�������� (cit. on p. 66)

    2017 arXiv

  85. [95]

    Using pile-up collisions as an abundant source of low-energy hadronic physics processes in ATLAS and an extraction of the jet energy resolution

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Using pile-up collisions as an abundant source of low-energy hadronic physics processes in ATLAS and an extraction of the jet energy resolution”. In: ���� 12 (2024), p. 032. 10.1007/JHEP12(2024)032. arXiv: 2407.10819�������� (cit. on p. 66)

    2024 arXiv

  86. [96]

    𝐸���� � ����������� �� ��� ����� �������� ����� ��������� ��� �� � ����������

    ATLASCollaboration. 𝐸���� � ����������� �� ��� ����� �������� ����� ��������� ��� �� � ����������. Tech. rep. Geneva: CERN, 2018. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2625233 (cit. on p. 66)

    2018

  87. [97]

    ElectronandphotonperformancemeasurementswiththeATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data

    ATLASCollaboration. “ElectronandphotonperformancemeasurementswiththeATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data”. In:����� 14 (2019), P12006. 10.1088/1748-0221/14/12/P12006. arXiv: 1908.00005�������� (cit.onp.66)

    2015 arXiv

  88. [98]

    Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV”. in: ��� �������� �������� ������� � 78.11 (Nov. 2018). ����: 1434-6052. 10.1140/epjc/ s10052-018-6288-9. http://dx.doi.org/10....

    2018 doi

  89. [99]

    Report of the Topical Group on Top quark physics and heavy flavor production for Snowmass 2021

    R. Schwienhorst and D. Wackeroth (editors). “Report of the Topical Group on Top quark physics and heavy flavor production for Snowmass 2021”. In: (Sept. 2022). arXiv: 2209.11267 �������� (cit. on p. 91). 89

    2021 arXiv

  90. [100]

    Measurement of the top quark mass with the ATLAS detector using𝑡¯𝑡 events with a high transverse momentum top quark

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Measurement of the top quark mass with the ATLAS detector using𝑡¯𝑡 events with a high transverse momentum top quark”. In:������� ������� �867 (). ����: 0370-2693. 10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb. 2025.139608 (cit. on p. 68)

    2025

  91. [101]

    High-LuminosityLargeHadronCollider(HL-LHC)

    G.Apollinarietal.“High-LuminosityLargeHadronCollider(HL-LHC)”.in: ���� ������ ���� �������4 (2017), pp. 1–516. 10.23731/CYRM-2017-004 (cit. on p. 91)

    2017 doi

  92. [102]

    Sawford J

    S. Sawford J. Gombas J. Fein and R. Schwienhorst.���������� �� ��� ��������� ���� �������� �� ��������� ���� ���������� �� ��� ������ ������������ ��������� �� ��� ��� ��� ������ ���������. 2022. arXiv: 2203.08064�������� (cit. on p. 91)

    2022 arXiv

  93. [103]

    �������� ���� ����� ������ �������� ��� �������� ��� ���� ������ �������

    R.AbdulKhaleketal. �������� ���� ����� ������ �������� ��� �������� ��� ���� ������ �������. 2022. arXiv: 2203.13199�������� (cit. on p. 91)

    2022 arXiv

  94. [104]

    CT18 globalPDF fitat leadingorder inQCD

    Mengshi Yanet al.“CT18 globalPDF fitat leadingorder inQCD”.in: �������� ������ � 107.11 (June 2023). ����: 2470-0029. 10.1103/physrevd.107.116001. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.116001 (cit. on p. 91)

    2023 doi

  95. [106]

    Updating and optimizing error parton distribution function sets in the Hessian approach

    Carl Schmidt, Jon Pumplin, and C.-P. Yuan. “Updating and optimizing error parton distribution function sets in the Hessian approach”. In: ����� ���� � 98.9 (2018), p. 094005. 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.094005. arXiv: 1806.07950�������� (cit. on p. 92). 90 �������� � ��� ����������� �...

    2018 arXiv

  96. [2010]

    10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005

    2008. 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005. https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129809(cit.on p. 18)

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.