Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper reports the first direct search for electroweak ttWj production, which probes the tW-scattering vertex, setting an observed 95% CL upper limit on the cross section of 251 fb (expected 230 fb), consistent with the Standard Model p

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

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 15:36 UTC pith:O6SZTKVM

load-bearing objection First direct search for ttWj_EW; a clean null result with a solid EFT interpretation, though the discriminating-variable shape for the dominant background relies on unvalidated MC against data in Δη. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.19038 v1 pith:O6SZTKVM submitted 2025-09-23 hep-ex

A search for electroweak tbar{t}Wj production in multileptonic final states at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector and bounds on effective field theory operators

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 14.65.Ha
keywords electroweak ttW productiontW scatteringforward jetsame-charge dileptonSMEFTeffective field theorytop-quark couplingsLHC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper attempts to establish electroweak production of a top-antitop pair with a W boson and an extra jet (ttWj_EW) as a measurable process that directly probes the tW-scattering vertex, the interaction of a top quark with a W boson, a part of the Standard Model never before isolated. Analyzing 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV LHC data in same-charge dilepton events with a forward jet, the search finds a signal strength mu = 0.9 +2.4/-3.0, consistent with the Standard Model, and sets an observed 95% CL upper limit of 251 fb on the cross section versus the SM prediction of 47.7 fb. The paper further claims the first constraints on the dimension-six SMEFT operators O_Ht and O_HQ^(1) from this process, exploiting the quadratic energy growth of their contributions to lift a degeneracy between them that exists in ttZ-only interpretations. If correct, this establishes a new window into electroweak symmetry breaking and a template for combined multi-process EFT analyses.

Core claim

The central claim is that the tW-scattering vertex can be probed directly in electroweak ttWj production, and that this process can be extracted from the much larger QCD ttW background using the pseudorapidity difference |Δη_j| between the most forward non-b-tagged jet and the jet with which it forms the highest invariant mass. The measured signal strength is 0.9 +2.4/-3.0, and the observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the cross section is 251 fb (230 fb), compared with the Standard Model prediction of 47.7 fb. This is the first direct bound on the tW-scattering vertex. Additionally, the analysis sets limits on the SMEFT operators O_Ht and O_HQ^(1), which modify the top-quark couplings t

What carries the argument

|Δη_j|, the absolute difference in pseudorapidity between the most forward non-b-tagged jet and the jet with which it forms the highest invariant mass, is the central discriminating variable: electroweak-produced events contain a spectator jet at higher pseudorapidity than the QCD ttW background, so the shape of this distribution separates signal from background in a binned profile-likelihood fit. For the EFT interpretation, the signal region is re-binned in the leading-lepton pT to exploit the quadratic energy growth of the O_Ht and O_HQ^(1) contributions, and confidence intervals are derived from pseudo-datasets to correct for the breakdown of Wilks' theorem.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the Monte Carlo prediction for the shape of |Δη_j| in the QCD ttW background; if the forward-jet pseudorapidity distribution is mis-modeled in the signal region, the fitted signal strength and the upper limit would be biased.

What would settle it

A comparison of the observed |Δη_j| distribution in a high-statistics QCD ttW control region with the Sherpa prediction (or with an alternative generator such as an NLO merging prediction) would falsify the shape assumption if a significant discrepancy appeared. Alternatively, a reanalysis of the same data using a fully independent discriminating variable — for example, the transverse mass of the ttW system or the jet multiplicity — that yields a signal strength inconsistent with 0.9 would undermine the claimed consistency with the Standard Model.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The first direct bound on the tW-scattering vertex means future LHC data can turn an excess or deficit here into a concrete test of new physics tied to electroweak symmetry breaking.
  • Combining the ttWj_EW and ttZ channels removes a degeneracy between O_Ht and O_HQ^(1), so the two operators can be constrained separately rather than only in combination.
  • The consistency with the Standard Model supports current higher-order predictions for ttW production, tempering the long-standing tension between direct ttW measurements and theory.
  • The strong energy growth in high-pT bins establishes that the sensitivity of the search comes disproportionately from boosted events, motivating targeted high-energy triggers and analyses.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the forward-jet pseudorapidity technique may carry over to other electroweak top-quark processes (e.g., tqZ, tqH with a spectator jet), where a similar forward jet separates the EW component from the QCD one.
  • Editorial inference: a dedicated measurement of the |Δη_j| shape in a high-statistics ttW-enriched region, comparing Sherpa with an alternative NLO merging prediction, would directly test the load-bearing modeling assumption.
  • Editorial inference: the observed consistency with the SM suggests that the quadratic EFT terms are currently unconstrained; with more data, a full SMEFT global fit including ttWj_EW, ttZ, and ttH could break remaining flat directions among top-quark operators.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for electroweak ttbarWj production at sqrt(s)=13 TeV using 140 fb^-1 of ATLAS Run 2 data. The analysis selects same-charge dilepton events with at least four jets and one b-tag, and exploits the forward-jet pseudorapidity difference |Δη_j| to separate the electroweak ttbarWj signal from the dominant QCD ttbarW background. A binned profile-likelihood fit is performed over three signal-region bins and seven control regions, with data-driven estimates for fake leptons (matrix method), charge flips, and photon conversions. The observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the ttbarWj_EW cross section is 251 fb (230 fb) versus a Standard Model prediction of 47.7 fb; the fitted signal strength is mu = 0.9 +2.4/-3.0. The paper also presents EFT limits on the Wilson coefficients c_Ht and c_HQ^(1) from ttbarWj and ttbarZ production, using pseudo-dataset confidence intervals to account for non-Wilks behavior.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is the first direct search for the tW-scattering vertex and provides the first constraints on O_Ht and O_HQ^(1) from ttbarWj production. The analysis is technically thorough: it uses the full Run 2 dataset, a seven-control-region fit with data-driven background estimates and a full systematic uncertainty evaluation, and it correctly handles the breakdown of Wilks' theorem in the EFT interpretation with pseudo-dataset thresholds. The energy-dependent sensitivity study is a useful case study for multi-process, multi-operator EFT interpretations. However, three load-bearing points need clarification or additional validation: the data/MC validation of the |Δη_j| shape for the dominant ttW QCD background, the parameterization of per-bin EFT normalization factors in Section 9, and an apparent inconsistency between the text and Table 6 regarding whether the SM point is contained in the EFT confidence intervals.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 5 and 8; Tables 2 and 4] The signal extraction relies on the three-bin |Δη_j| distribution in the SR (after the |Δη_j|>2.0 requirement), while the ttW QCD normalization is constrained by the 4J-loΔη and 4J-hiΔη control regions, which are binned in channel, lepton charge, and b-jet multiplicity but not in |Δη_j|. The shape of the dominant ttW QCD background across the three SR bins is therefore taken entirely from the Sherpa NLO prediction, and the modeling uncertainties in Section 7 compare generators that share common NLO matching assumptions. No data/MC agreement plot binned in |Δη_j| is shown. A mismatch in the predicted |Δη_j| slope would be partially absorbed by the free ttW QCD normalization and could bias mu_ttWjEW and the quoted limit. Please add a Δη-binned validation region orthogonal to the SR, or otherwise demonstrate that the assigned shape uncertainties cover the observed data/MC differences in a |
  2. [Section 9] The parameterization of the EFT signal is not clear. The text states that when an EFT operator is considered, the floating normalization factor for the process is replaced by a dedicated cross-section uncertainty nuisance parameter, and "a new free-floating parameter is introduced to parameterize the effect of the EFT operator on the ttWjEW (ttZ) normalization in each bin of the analysis." If each analysis bin has an independent, unconstrained normalization for the EFT contribution, then the shape information in pT(l0) and in the CRs is not used, and the energy-dependent sensitivity claimed in Figure 11 could not arise. If these per-bin parameters are actually constrained (e.g., by the MC prediction as a function of the Wilson coefficient), the constraints must be specified. Please clarify the exact role of these per-bin parameters and how the Wilson coefficient is extracted given their
  3. [Section 9 and Table 6] The text says: "In the most complex fit ... the 95% confidence interval contains the SM expectation." This appears to be contradicted by Table 6, which for the simultaneous ttWjEW+ttZ fit gives c_Ht 95% CI = [−10,−0.96] ∪ [1.5,7.3] and c_HQ = [−12,0.33] ∪ [3.4,12]. The c_Ht interval excludes zero, so the SM point (c_Ht=c_HQ=0) is not contained in the marginal intervals. If the marginal intervals are correct, then the statement that the interval contains the SM expectation is wrong, and the paper would be reporting a 95% exclusion of the SM in the most complex EFT fit. This discrepancy must be resolved — either the text or the table is erroneous, and the conclusion about consistency with the SM needs to be stated accurately.
  4. [Sections 3 and 9] The EFT samples used for the interpretation are generated at LO with MadGraph and processed with the AtlFast II fast detector simulation, while the nominal signal and background samples use full Geant4 simulation. No systematic uncertainty is described for the difference between fast and full simulation in the EFT signal shapes. Since the EFT limits depend on the pT(l0) distribution and on migration between bins, the possibility of a fast-simulation bias in acceptance or shape should be quantified or otherwise justified. At minimum, the paper should state whether a fast/full comparison was performed and what its impact is.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] The row for the signal region appears garbled: "|Δη_j|—>2.0ÍpT(j)—>250GeV" should be split into two separate entries with proper formatting.
  2. [Section 5] The definition of Δη_j is awkward: "the difference in pseudorapidity between the most forward non-b-tagged jet and the jet with which it produces the highest invariant mass." It would be clearer to specify whether the invariant mass is computed with the most forward jet or with each pair of jets, and to define the pairing prescription explicitly.
  3. [Section 9] The phrase "considering the impact of both O_Ht or O_HQ" should read "both O_Ht and O_HQ".
  4. [Figure 4] The signal is shown multiplied by 20, but no numerical scale or legend entry indicates the factor for the dashed line. Please add a note in the caption or legend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; measurement is a direct counting experiment with standard profile-likelihood extraction and externally normalized signal templates.

full rationale

The central result—the observed (expected) 95% CL upper limit on sigma(ttWjEW) of 251 fb (230 fb) and the signal strength mu = 0.9 +2.4/-3.0—is obtained from a binned profile-likelihood fit (Section 8) in which the ttWjEW signal template is normalized to an external NLO theoretical cross section (47.7 fb from Ref. [12]) and the observed event counts in SR and CRs are compared directly. No fitted parameter is defined in terms of the limit, and the limit is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The EFT interpretation (Section 9) fits Wilson coefficients c_Ht and c_HQ^(1) to data using MC reweighting from SMEFTsim; this is the standard procedure for setting constraints, not a derivation from the inputs. The paper's self-citations ([3], [94]) are contextual references to previous ATLAS measurements and are not load-bearing for the new claim; the theoretical framework is cited to external works ([1], [2], [4], [12], [13]). The dominant systematic uncertainty is the modeling of the ttW QCD |Delta_eta_j| shape (Section 7, Table 5); while this is a legitimate validation concern about MC modeling, it does not make the result circular because the shape is an MC input, not a parameter fitted to the SR data, and the control regions constrain only the normalization. The paper explicitly acknowledges limitations (limited statistics at high pT, dominance of ttW QCD modeling systematics), none of which conceal a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard statistical tools (profile likelihood, CLs, asymptotic formulas) and a chain of Monte Carlo simulated samples for signal and backgrounds, including Sherpa, MadGraph+Pythia, and Powheg, with data-driven corrections for instrument effects. The free parameters are nuisance normalization factors and the Wilson coefficients of interest, which are fitted to data as usual in LHC measurements, not introduced ad hoc. No new physical entities are postulated; the EFT operators O_Ht and O_HQ^(1) are standard in the literature.

free parameters (9)
  • Signal strength mu_ttWj_EW = 0.9 +2.4/-3.0 (observed)
    Free parameter in the profile likelihood fit, ratio of observed to SM ttWj_EW cross section (Table 4).
  • ttZ normalization factor = 0.94 +0.14/-0.13
    Unconstrained normalization factor determined in the fit (Table 4).
  • ttW QCD normalization factor = 1.06 +0.28/-0.26
    Unconstrained normalization factor for the dominant background (Table 4).
  • VV normalization factor = 1.11 +0.20/-0.20
    Unconstrained normalization factor for diboson backgrounds (Table 4).
  • Conversions normalization factor = 1.12 +0.37/-0.34
    Unconstrained normalization factor for photon conversion background (Table 4).
  • Charge-flips normalization factor = 0.92 +0.14/-0.14
    Unconstrained normalization factor for charge mismeasurement background (Table 4).
  • c_Ht Wilson coefficient = 95% CI [-10,3.2] TeV^-2 (ttWj_EW+ttZ fit, Table 6)
    EFT operator coefficient fitted to data; the paper reports confidence intervals, not a single best fit.
  • c_HQ^(1) Wilson coefficient = 95% CI [-11,7.4] TeV^-2 (ttWj_EW+ttZ fit, Table 6)
    EFT operator coefficient fitted to data; confidence intervals reported in Table 6.
  • EFT per-bin normalization parameters = not quoted
    Section 9 introduces a new free-floating parameter for the EFT operator effect on ttWj_EW and ttZ normalization in each bin of the fit.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Monte Carlo generators (Sherpa 2.2.10, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO, Powheg Box2, Pythia8) accurately model the signal and background processes after applying scale factors and corrections.
    The entire background and signal template construction in Sections 3 and 6 depends on these generators being adequate. The analysis assigns systematic uncertainties for generator choice, but the central assumption is that the MC templates, especially the ttW QCD |Delta_eta_j| shape, are correct.
  • domain assumption The SMEFTsim 3.0 model with MW input scheme and top flavor restrictions correctly describes the EFT contributions to ttWj_EW and ttZ production.
    The EFT interpretation in Section 9 uses event weights from this UFO model to parameterize the effect of O_Ht and O_HQ^(1).
  • domain assumption The SMEFT expansion in Wilson coefficients is valid up to Lambda = 1 TeV, including both linear and quadratic terms.
    Section 1.1 and Section 9 rely on this to set limits. The paper explicitly notes that the linear interference term is suppressed and quadratic contributions dominate in ttWj_EW.
  • standard math The profile likelihood ratio test statistic follows a chi-squared distribution for the asymptotic intervals, with corrections via pseudo-datasets where Wilks' theorem is violated.
    Section 9 uses the asymptotic likelihood approach (Wilks' theorem) and explicitly addresses violations due to quadratic EFT dependencies by generating pseudo-datasets, relying on standard statistical practice.
  • domain assumption The forward-jet kinematic variable |Delta_eta_j| is adequately described by the MC simulation after data corrections, and the signal-to-background discrimination is valid.
    The signal extraction in Section 8 hinges on this variable to separate ttWj_EW from ttW QCD. This is the load-bearing modeling assumption flagged in weakest_assumption.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A search for electroweak $t\bar{t}Wj$ production in multileptonic final states at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector and bounds on effective field theory operators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O6SZTKVM

@misc{pith2026250919038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A search for electroweak $t\bartWj$ production in multileptonic final states at $\sqrts = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector and bounds on effective field theory operators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O6SZTKVM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.19038}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A search is presented for the electroweak production of a top quark pair in association with a $W$ boson and at least one additional jet, known as the ${t\bar{t}W\kern-0.2em j_{\mathrm{EW}}}$ process. This process has embedded within it a $tW$-scattering vertex, which is probed directly for the first time. The collision data were collected with the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the LHC and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 140 $\mathrm{fb^{-1}}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$~TeV. The search uses same-charge pairs of electrons and muons together with jets, of which at least one is $b$-tagged. The properties of the most forward jet relative to the rest of the event are used to discriminate the electroweak ${t\bar{t}W\kern-0.2em j_{\text{EW}}}$ production process from its strong $t\bar{t}W$ production counterpart. A measured (expected) 95% CL upper limit on the cross section is set at $\sigma_{{t\bar{t}W\kern-0.2em j_{\mathrm{EW}}}} < 251$~fb (230 fb), to be compared with the expected SM cross section of 47.7 fb. Limits are set on the SM Effective Field Theory (EFT) operators $O_{Ht}$ and $O^{(1)}_{HQ}$, which modify the electroweak couplings of the top quark through contributions to the $tW$-scattering vertex. The interpretation acts as a case study to emphasize the importance of energy-dependent sensitivity, multi-process and multi-operator EFT contributions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Rare top quark production and top quark properties in ATLAS and CMS

    hep-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    ATLAS and CMS have performed analyses of rare top quark production modes that constrain top couplings and search for new physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 79 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. A. Dror, M. Farina, E. Salvioni, and J. Serra,Strong tW Scattering at the LHC, JHEP01(2016) 071, arXiv:1511.03674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Maltoni, L

    F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, and K. Mimasu,Top-quark electroweak interactions at high energy, JHEP10(2019) 004, arXiv:1904.05637 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the total and differential cross-sections of𝑡¯𝑡𝑊production in𝑝𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP05(2024) 131, arXiv:2401.05299 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Frederix, D

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro,Large NLO corrections in𝑡¯𝑡𝑊± and𝑡¯𝑡𝑡 ¯𝑡 hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions, JHEP02(2018) 031, arXiv:1711.02116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Febres Cordero, M

    F. Febres Cordero, M. Kraus, and L. Reina, Top-quark pair production in association with a𝑊± gauge boson in the POWHEG-BOX, Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 094014, arXiv:2101.11808 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑡¯𝑡𝑊 and𝑡¯𝑡𝑍 production cross sections in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠=8TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP11(2015) 172, arXiv:1509.05276 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    CMS Collaboration,Observation of top quark pairs produced in association with a vector boson in 𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=8TeV, JHEP01(2016) 096, arXiv:1510.01131 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑡 ¯𝑡𝑍and𝑡 ¯𝑡𝑊production cross sections in multilepton final states using3.2fb−1 of𝑝𝑝collisions at √𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 40, arXiv:1609.01599 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑡¯𝑡𝑍 and𝑡¯𝑡𝑊 cross sections in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 072009, arXiv:1901.03584 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a𝑊or𝑍boson in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP08(2018) 011, arXiv:1711.02547 [hep-ex]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the cross section of top quark–antiquark pair production in association with a𝑊boson in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP07(2023) 219, arXiv:2208.06485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Frederix and I

    R. Frederix and I. Tsinikos,On improving NLO merging forttWproduction, JHEP11(2021) 029, arXiv:2108.07826 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Buonocore et al.,Precise Predictions for the Associated Production of a W Boson with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair at the LHC, Phys

    L. Buonocore et al.,Precise Predictions for the Associated Production of a W Boson with a Top-Antitop Quark Pair at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 231901, arXiv:2306.16311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Evidence for the associated production of the Higgs boson and a top quark pair with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 072003, arXiv:1712.08891 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at√𝑠=13TeV , Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 378, arXiv:2011.03652 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 496, arXiv:2303.15061 [hep-ex], Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of four top quark production in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Phys. Lett. B847(2023) 138290, arXiv:2305.13439 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,Identifying top partners at LHC, JHEP11(2009) 030, arXiv:0907.3155 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Pérez-Victoria, Handbook of vectorlike quarks: Mixing and single production, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 094010, arXiv:1306.0572 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Perelstein,Little Higgs models and their phenomenology, Prog

    M. Perelstein,Little Higgs models and their phenomenology, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.58(2007) 247, arXiv:hep-ph/0512128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  21. [21]

    R. S. Chivukula, S. B. Selipsky, and E. H. Simmons, Nonoblique effects in the Z b¯𝑏vertex from ETC dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 575, arXiv:hep-ph/9204214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  22. [22]

    R. S. Chivukula, E. H. Simmons, and J. Terning, A heavy top quark and the𝑍𝑏¯𝑏vertex in noncommuting extended technicolor, Phys. Lett. B331(1994) 383, arXiv:hep-ph/9404209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  23. [23]

    Hagiwara and N

    K. Hagiwara and N. Kitazawa,Extended technicolor contribution to the Zbb vertex, Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 5374, arXiv:hep-ph/9504332

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  24. [24]

    Mahanta,Noncommuting ETC corrections to𝑧𝑡¯𝑡vertex, Phys

    U. Mahanta,Noncommuting ETC corrections to𝑧𝑡¯𝑡vertex, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 5848, arXiv:hep-ph/9611289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  25. [25]

    Mahanta, Probing noncommuting extended technicolor effects by𝑒+𝑒−→𝑡𝑡at the Next Linear Collider, Phys

    U. Mahanta, Probing noncommuting extended technicolor effects by𝑒+𝑒−→𝑡𝑡at the Next Linear Collider, Phys. Rev. D56(1997) 402

    1997

  26. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Interpretations of the ATLAS measurements of Higgs boson production and decay rates and differential cross-sections in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, JHEP11(2024) 097, arXiv:2402.05742 [hep-ex]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Barducci et al., Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory, (2018), ed

    D. Barducci et al., Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory, (2018), ed. by J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al., arXiv:1802.07237 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Azatov, R

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, C. S. Machado, and F. Riva, Helicity selection rules and noninterference for BSM amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 065014, arXiv:1607.05236 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  30. [30]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Insertable B-Layer: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    arXiv 2010

  31. [31]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  33. [33]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15(2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 47, arXiv:1909.00761 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P09015, arXiv:2004.13447 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    ATLAS Collaboration,2015 start-up trigger menu and initial performance assessment of the ATLAS trigger using Run-2 data, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2016-001, 2016, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2136007

    arXiv 2015

  39. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Trigger Menu in 2016, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2017-001, 2017, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2242069

    arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Trigger Menu in 2017, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2018-002, 2018, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2625986

    arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Trigger Menu in 2018, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2019-001, 2019, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2693402

    arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2003

  43. [43]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands,A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  45. [45]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    D. J. Lange,The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462(2001) 152

    2001

  48. [48]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Gleisberg et al.,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP02(2009) 007, arXiv:0811.4622 [hep-ph]

    T. Gleisberg et al.,Event generation with SHERPA 1.1, JHEP02(2009) 007, arXiv:0811.4622 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  50. [50]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, et al.,Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663, arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Gleisberg and S

    T. Gleisberg and S. Höche,Comix, a new matrix element generator, JHEP12(2008) 039, arXiv:0808.3674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [52]

    Cascioli, P

    F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer, and S. Pozzorini,Scattering Amplitudes with Open Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 111601, arXiv:1111.5206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer, Collier: A fortran-based complex one-loop library in extended regularizations, Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 220, arXiv:1604.06792 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur

    F. Buccioni et al.,OpenLoops 2, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 866, arXiv:1907.13071 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Schumann and F

    S. Schumann and F. Krauss, A parton shower algorithm based on Catani–Seymour dipole factorisation, JHEP03(2008) 038, arXiv:0709.1027 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, and F. Siegert, QCD matrix elements + parton showers. The NLO case, JHEP04(2013) 027, arXiv:1207.5030 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, M. Schönherr, and F. Siegert, A critical appraisal of NLO+PS matching methods, JHEP09(2012) 049, arXiv:1111.1220 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Krauss, B. R. Webber, and R. Kuhn,QCD Matrix Elements + Parton Showers, JHEP11(2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  59. [59]

    Höche, F

    S. Höche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann, and F. Siegert,QCD matrix elements and truncated showers, JHEP05(2009) 053, arXiv:0903.1219 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  60. [60]

    de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4

    D. de Florian et al., Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector, (2017), arXiv:1610.07922 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Alioli, P

    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, arXiv:1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide, JHEP04(2021) 073, arXiv:2012.11343 [hep-ph]

    I. Brivio,SMEFTsim 3.0 — a practical guide, JHEP04(2021) 073, arXiv:2012.11343 [hep-ph]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Degrande et al.,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput

    C. Degrande et al.,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output, Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 1201, arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  64. [64]

    Brivio et al.,Electroweak input parameters, (2021), arXiv:2111.12515 [hep-ph]

    I. Brivio et al.,Electroweak input parameters, (2021), arXiv:2111.12515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv:1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  66. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at√𝑠=13TeV , ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-026, 2015,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037717

    arXiv 2015

  67. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST14(2019) P12006, arXiv:1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  68. [68]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2𝑝𝑝collision data set at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 578, arXiv:2012.00578 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  71. [71]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  72. [72]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv:2007.02645 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of pile-up mitigation techniques for jets in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=8TeV using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 581, arXiv:1510.03823 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Selection of jets produced in13TeV proton–proton collisions with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2015-029, 2015,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037702

    arXiv 2015

  75. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS flavour-tagging algorithms for the LHC Run 2𝑝𝑝 collision dataset, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 681, arXiv:2211.16345 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Identification of Jets Containing𝑏-Hadrons with Recurrent Neural Networks at the ATLAS Experiment, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-003, 2017, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255226

    arXiv 2017

  77. [77]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS𝑏-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with𝑡¯𝑡 events in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 970, arXiv:1907.05120 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑐-jet mistagging efficiency in𝑡¯𝑡events using𝑝𝑝 collision data at√𝑠=13TeV collected with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 95, arXiv:2109.10627 [hep-ex]. 31

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Calibration of the light-flavour jet mistagging efficiency of the𝑏-tagging algorithms with𝑍+jets events using139fb−1 of ATLAS proton–proton collision data at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 728, arXiv:2301.06319 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction with the ATLAS detector using proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 903, arXiv:1802.08168 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.