Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-HIG-23-016 | ||
| Constraints on standard model effective field theory effects with Higgs bosons produced in association with W or Z bosons in the H $ \rightarrow $ bb decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 22 September 2024 | ||
| Abstract: A standard model effective field theory (SMEFT) analysis with dimension-six operators is performed in the Higgsstrahlung process, where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a W or Z boson, in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The final states where the W or Z boson decay leptonically and the Higgs boson decays to a pair of bottom quarks are considered. The analyzed data were collected by the CMS experiment between 2016 and 2018 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. An approach targeted to optimize simultaneously the sensitivity to Wilson coefficients of multiple SMEFT operators is employed. The observed results are consistent with the predictions of the standard model. | ||
| Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagrams for VH production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black mark. Note that the Feynman diagrams on the left is not present in the SM, but rather induced by new EFT operators. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for VH production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black mark. Note that the Feynman diagrams on the left is not present in the SM, but rather induced by new EFT operators. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for VH production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black mark. Note that the Feynman diagrams on the left is not present in the SM, but rather induced by new EFT operators. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
Representative Feynman diagrams for VH production sensitive to different dimension-six operators. The EFT effects contribute in vertices highlighted with a black mark. Note that the Feynman diagrams on the left is not present in the SM, but rather induced by new EFT operators. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Decay planes and angles in the V($ \rightarrow rm{\mathrm{l}}_1 rm{\mathrm{l}}_2 $)H($ \rightarrow \mathrm{b} \overline{\mathrm{b}} $) production (the Higgs boson is marked as ``h'' in this sketch). Note that $ \Theta $ is defined in the $ rm{\mathrm{V}}\mathrm{H} $ rest frame, while $ \theta $ is defined in the V rest frame. Figure taken from Ref. [33]. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Selected template shapes for the different optimal working points of the EFT effects studied in the 2-lepton channel in resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories. The template shapes of the EFT signal components are shown for arbitrary values of the Wilson coefficients: ($ {c}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{q}} $, $ {c}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{q}} $, $ {c}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{u}} $, $ {c}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{d}} $, $ {g}^{\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}}_{2} $, $ {g}^{\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}}_{4} $) = (1, 0.8, 1, 1, 2, 2) and (0.2, -0.03, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 1) in resolved and boosted categories, respectively. The SM VH signal is flat by construction. The background is shown as a grey band. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Selected template shapes for the different optimal working points of the EFT effects studied in the 2-lepton channel in resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories. The template shapes of the EFT signal components are shown for arbitrary values of the Wilson coefficients: ($ {c}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{q}} $, $ {c}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{q}} $, $ {c}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{u}} $, $ {c}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{d}} $, $ {g}^{\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}}_{2} $, $ {g}^{\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}}_{4} $) = (1, 0.8, 1, 1, 2, 2) and (0.2, -0.03, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 1) in resolved and boosted categories, respectively. The SM VH signal is flat by construction. The background is shown as a grey band. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Selected template shapes for the different optimal working points of the EFT effects studied in the 2-lepton channel in resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories. The template shapes of the EFT signal components are shown for arbitrary values of the Wilson coefficients: ($ {c}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{q}} $, $ {c}^{(3)}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{q}} $, $ {c}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{u}} $, $ {c}_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{d}} $, $ {g}^{\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}}_{2} $, $ {g}^{\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}}_{4} $) = (1, 0.8, 1, 1, 2, 2) and (0.2, -0.03, 0.2, 0.2, 1, 1) in resolved and boosted categories, respectively. The SM VH signal is flat by construction. The background is shown as a grey band. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 2-muon (left) and 2-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 2-muon (left) and 2-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 2-muon (left) and 2-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 2-muon (left) and 2-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 2-muon (left) and 2-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 1-muon (left) and 1-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 1-muon (left) and 1-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 1-muon (left) and 1-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-c:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 1-muon (left) and 1-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-d:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 1-muon (left) and 1-electron (right) final states in the SR for resolved (upper row) and boosted (lower row) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 0-lepton final state in the SR for resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 0-lepton final state in the SR for resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
BIT templates obtained using a background-only fit to data in the 0-lepton final state in the SR for resolved (left) and boosted (right) categories considering the 2017 data set. The SM VH signal has been scaled by 20 and 5 for the resolved and boosted BIT templates in the upper and lower row, respectively, for better visualization. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background expectation after the background-only fit to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Summary of results in terms of best-fit value of the Wilson coefficients and the intervals where test statistic falls below 1 and 4. These results are obtained either by allowing all Wilson coefficients to float freely at every point of the scan (profiled fit), or by keeping all other Wilson coefficients to the their SM values, i.e., 0, except for the one that is being considered in the scan (frozen fit). The $ \times $ 5 multiplication factor applies to the sizes of intervals satisfying $ {q} < $ 1 and $ {q} < $ 4 but not to the value of the CIs on the right-hand side of the figure. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
Profiled limits on the energy scale $ \Lambda $ for three different assumptions for each Wilson coefficient while fixing the other Wilson coefficients to their SM values. The upper limit on Wilson coefficients corresponding to q=4 is used in translating the constraints to $ \Lambda $. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-c:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-d:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-e:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-f:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-g:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-h:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-i:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-j:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-k:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-l:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-m:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-n:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-o:
Observed two-dimensional likelihood scans for different pairs of Wilson coefficients with other Wilson coefficients fixed at their SM values after combining results from all eras and final states. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
The dimension-6 operators in the Warsaw basis affecting VH production at leading order. Here $ {{\mathrm{q}}_{rm{L}}} $ refers to a left-handed light quark field, $ {\mathrm{u}}_{rm{R}} $ a right-handed up quark singlet, and $ {\mathrm{d}}_{rm{R}} $ a right-handed down quark singlet. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Selections for the resolved category in 0-lepton final state. Momenta and masses have units of GeV. |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Selections for the boosted category in 0-lepton final state. Momenta and masses have units of GeV. |
png pdf |
Table 4:
Selections for the resolved category in 1-lepton final state. Momenta and masses have units of GeV. |
png pdf |
Table 5:
Selections for the boosted category in 1-lepton final state. Momenta and masses have units of GeV. |
png pdf |
Table 6:
Selections for the resolved category in 2-lepton final state. Momenta and masses have units of GeV. |
png pdf |
Table 7:
Selections for the boosted category in 2-lepton final state. Momenta and masses have units of GeV. |
| Summary |
| A search is performed for non-resonant new physics effects in Higgs boson production in association with a vector boson (W, Z) within the framework of standard model effective field theory (SMEFT). Final states with the Higgs boson decaying to a pair of bottom quarks are targeted. Proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment during 2016--2018 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV are used, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Leptonic decay modes of W and Z bosons ($ {W}\to\ell\nu $, $ {Z}\to\ell\ell $, and $ {Z}\to\nu\bar{\nu} $) are targeted, and both resolved as well as merged-jet topology are considered in each vector boson decay final state. A multivariate analysis strategy is adopted to probe the effects of multiple SMEFT operators including those giving rise to CP violation. Results are consistent with the standard model expectation. Constraints on the Wilson coefficients of six relevant SMEFT operators are obtained by performing a simultaneous fit to the data. Additionally, constraints on two-dimensional planes of Wilson coefficients for all possible pairs are presented. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | F. Englert and R. Brout | Broken symmetry and the mass of gauge vector mesons | PRL 13 (1964) 321 | |
| 2 | P. W. Higgs | Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields | PL 12 (1964) 132 | |
| 3 | P. W. Higgs | Broken symmetries and the masses of gauge bosons | PRL 13 (1964) 508 | |
| 4 | G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble | Global conservation laws and massless particles | PRL 13 (1964) 585 | |
| 5 | ATLAS Collaboration | Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC | PLB 716 (2012) 1 | 1207.7214 |
| 6 | CMS Collaboration | Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC | PLB 716 (2012) 30 | CMS-HIG-12-028 1207.7235 |
| 7 | CMS Collaboration | Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in $ pp $ Collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 and 8 TeV | JHEP 06 (2013) 081 | CMS-HIG-12-036 1303.4571 |
| 8 | CMS Collaboration | Observation of Higgs boson decay to bottom quarks | PRL 121 (2018) 121801 | CMS-HIG-18-016 1808.08242 |
| 9 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of simplified template cross sections of the Higgs boson produced in association with W or Z bosons in the H $ \to \mathrm{b\bar{b}} $ decay channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ =13 TeV | PRD 109 (2024) 092011 | CMS-HIG-20-001 2312.07562 |
| 10 | B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise | Operator analysis for precision electroweak physics | PLB 265 (1991) 326 | |
| 11 | J.-y. Chiu, F. Golf, R. Kelley, and A. V. Manohar | Electroweak corrections in high energy processes using effective field theory | PRD 77 (2008) 053004 | 0712.0396 |
| 12 | G. Passarino and M. Trott | The standard model effective field theory and next to leading order | 1610.08356 | |
| 13 | E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott | Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators I: formalism and lambda dependence | JHEP 10 (2013) 087 | 1308.2627 |
| 14 | R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott | Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators III: gauge coupling dependence and phenomenology | JHEP 04 (2014) 159 | 1312.2014 |
| 15 | E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott | Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators II: Yukawa dependence | JHEP 01 (2014) 035 | 1310.4838 |
| 16 | C. Englert and M. Spannowsky | Effective theories and measurements at colliders | --15, 2015 PLB 740 (2015) 8 |
1408.5147 |
| 17 | I. Brivio and M. Trott | The standard model as an effective field theory | Phys. Rept. 793 (2019) 1 | 1706.08945 |
| 18 | CMS Collaboration | Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions in its production and decay using the four-lepton final state | PRD 104 (2021) 052004 | CMS-HIG-19-009 2104.12152 |
| 19 | CMS Collaboration | Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings from its production and decay using the WW channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV} | EPJC 84 (2024) 779 | CMS-HIG-22-008 2403.00657 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | Constraints on anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons and fermions from the production of Higgs bosons using the $ \tau\tau $ final state | PRD 108 (2023) 032013 | CMS-HIG-20-007 2205.05120 |
| 21 | Y. Gao et al. | Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders | PRD 81 (2010) 075022 | 1001.3396 |
| 22 | S. Bolognesi et al. | On the spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC | PRD 86 (2012) 095031 | 1208.4018 |
| 23 | I. Anderson et al. | Constraining anomalous HVV interactions at proton and lepton colliders | PRD 89 (2014) 035007 | 1309.4819 |
| 24 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of VH, $ \mathrm{H}\to \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production as a function of the vector-boson transverse momentum in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 05 (2019) 141 | 1903.04618 |
| 25 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of $ WH $ and $ ZH $ production in the $ H \rightarrow b\bar{b} $ decay channel in $ pp $ collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | EPJC 81 (2021) 178 | 2007.02873 |
| 26 | CMS Collaboration | Combined Higgs boson production and decay measurements with up to 137 fb$ ^{-1} $ of proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2020 CMS-PAS-HIG-19-005 |
CMS-PAS-HIG-19-005 |
| 27 | J. Ellis et al. | Top, Higgs, diboson and electroweak fit to the standard model effective field theory | JHEP 04 (2021) 279 | 2012.02779 |
| 28 | SMEFiT Collaboration | Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC | JHEP 11 (2021) 089 | 2105.00006 |
| 29 | S. Weinberg | Baryon- and lepton-nonconserving processes | PRL 43 (1979) 1566 | |
| 30 | B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek | Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian | JHEP 10 (2010) 085 | 1008.4884 |
| 31 | A. Falkowski and F. Riva | Model-independent precision constraints on dimension-6 operators | JHEP 02 (2015) 039 | 1411.0669 |
| 32 | S. Banerjee, C. Englert, R. S. Gupta, and M. Spannowsky | Probing electroweak precision physics via boosted Higgs-strahlung at the LHC | PRD 98 (2018) 095012 | 1807.01796 |
| 33 | S. Banerjee et al. | Towards the ultimate differential SMEFT analysis | JHEP 09 (2020) 170 | 1912.07628 |
| 34 | J. Brehmer, K. Cranmer, G. Louppe, and J. Pavez | Constraining effective field theories with machine learning | PRL 121 (2018) 111801 | 1805.00013 |
| 35 | J. Brehmer, G. Louppe, J. Pavez, and K. Cranmer | Mining gold from implicit models to improve likelihood-free inference | Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 117 (2020) 5242 | 1805.12244 |
| 36 | S. Chen, A. Glioti, G. Panico, and A. Wulzer | Parametrized classifiers for optimal EFT sensitivity | JHEP 05 (2021) 247 | 2007.10356 |
| 37 | S. Chatterjee et al. | Tree boosting for learning EFT parameters | Comput. Phys. Commun. 277 (2022) 108385 | 2107.10859 |
| 38 | S. Chatterjee, S. Rohshap, R. Schöfbeck, and D. Schwarz | Learning the EFT likelihood with tree boosting | 2205.12976 | |
| 39 | R. Gomez Ambrosio et al. | Unbinned multivariate observables for global SMEFT analyses from machine learning | JHEP 03 (2023) 033 | 2211.02058 |
| 40 | J. Davis et al. | Constraining anomalous Higgs boson couplings to virtual photons | PRD 105 (2022) 096027 | 2109.13363 |
| 41 | A. Rossia, M. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou | Diboson production in the SMEFT from gluon fusion | JHEP 11 (2023) 132 | 2306.09963 |
| 42 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 43 | CMS Collaboration | Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 | JINST 19 (2024) P05064 | CMS-PRF-21-001 2309.05466 |
| 44 | CMS Collaboration | Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker | JINST 9 (2014) P10009 | CMS-TRK-11-001 1405.6569 |
| 45 | CMS Tracker Group | The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade | JINST 16 (2021) P02027 | 2012.14304 |
| 46 | CMS Collaboration | Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020 CDS |
|
| 47 | CMS Collaboration | 2017 tracking performance plots | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2017-015, 2017 CDS |
|
| 48 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JINST 15 (2020) P10017 | CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165 |
| 49 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 50 | P. Nason | A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 51 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 52 | S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re | A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX | JHEP 06 (2010) 043 | 1002.2581 |
| 53 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi | A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction | JHEP 09 (2007) 126 | 0707.3088 |
| 54 | 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 | 1112.5675 |
| 55 | R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli | Single-top $ t $-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO | JHEP 09 (2012) 130 | 1207.5391 |
| 56 | E. Re | Single-top $ \rm Wt $-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method | EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 | 1009.2450 |
| 57 | N. Kidonakis | Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a W$ ^{-} $ or H$ ^{-} $ | PRD 82 (2010) 054018 | 1005.4451 |
| 58 | 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 | JHEP 07 (2014) 079 | 1405.0301 |
| 59 | P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk | Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations | JHEP 03 (2013) 015 | 1212.3460 |
| 60 | J. Alwall et al. | Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions | EPJC 53 (2008) 473 | 0706.2569 |
| 61 | R. Frederix and S. Frixione | Merging meets matching in MC@NLO | JHEP 12 (2012) 061 | 1209.6215 |
| 62 | A. Belvedere et al. | LHC EFT WG Note: SMEFT predictions, event reweighting, and simulation | 2406.14620 | |
| 63 | K. Hamilton, P. Nason, and G. Zanderighi | MINLO: Multi-scale improved NLO | JHEP 10 (2012) 155 | 1206.3572 |
| 64 | G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano | HW/HZ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO | JHEP 10 (2013) 083 | 1306.2542 |
| 65 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group | Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector | 10, 2016 | 1610.07922 |
| 66 | I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott | The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools | JHEP 12 (2017) 070 | 1709.06492 |
| 67 | I. Brivio | SMEFTsim 3.0 -- a practical guide | JHEP 04 (2021) 073 | 2012.11343 |
| 68 | I. Brivio, T. Corbett, and M. Trott | The Higgs width in the SMEFT | JHEP 10 (2019) 056 | 1906.06949 |
| 69 | P. Artoisenet and O. Mattelaer | MadWeight: Automatic event reweighting with matrix elements | PoS CHARGED 025, 2008 link |
|
| 70 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 71 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | no.~1, 4, 2020 EPJC 80 (2020) |
CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 72 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2018) 161 | CMS-FSQ-15-005 1802.02613 |
| 73 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 74 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 75 | CMS Collaboration | Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid | CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015 CDS |
|
| 76 | CMS Collaboration | Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 16 (2021) P05014 | CMS-EGM-17-001 2012.06888 |
| 77 | CMS Collaboration | ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020 CDS |
|
| 78 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JINST 13 (2018) P06015 | CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528 |
| 79 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 80 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 81 | CMS Collaboration | Jet energy scale and resolution measurement with run 2 legacy data collected by cms at 13 tev | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2021-033, 2021 CDS |
|
| 82 | M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam | Pileup subtraction using jet areas | PLB 659 (2008) 119 | 0707.1378 |
| 83 | CMS Collaboration | Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV | JINST 12 (2017) P02014 | CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663 |
| 84 | D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran | Pileup per particle identification | JHEP 10 (2014) 059 | 1407.6013 |
| 85 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | no.~09, P09018, 2020 JINST 15 (2020) |
CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503 |
| 86 | CMS Collaboration | Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
| 87 | E. Bols et al. | Jet flavour classification using DeepJet | JINST 15 (2020) P12012 | 2008.10519 |
| 88 | CMS Collaboration | Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV | CMS Detector Performance Report CMS-DP-2023-005, 2023 CDS |
|
| 89 | CMS Collaboration | A deep neural network for simultaneous estimation of b jet energy and resolution | Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 4 (2020) 10 | CMS-HIG-18-027 1912.06046 |
| 90 | H. Qu and L. Gouskos | ParticleNet: Jet tagging via particle clouds | PRD 101 (2020) 056019 | 1902.08570 |
| 91 | J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam | Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC | PRL 100 (2008) 242001 | 0802.2470 |
| 92 | M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam | Towards an understanding of jet substructure | JHEP 09 (2013) 029 | 1307.0007 |
| 93 | A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler | Soft Drop | JHEP 05 (2014) 146 | 1402.2657 |
| 94 | Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber | Better jet clustering algorithms | JHEP 08 (1997) 001 | hep-ph/9707323 |
| 95 | M. Wobisch and T. Wengler | Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering | in Proceedings of the Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics, Hamburg, Germany, 1998 link |
hep-ph/9907280 |
| 96 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of highly Lorentz-boosted heavy particles using graph neural networks and new mass decorrelation techniques | Technical Report CMS-DP-2020-002, 2020 CDS |
|
| 97 | CMS Collaboration | Calibration of the mass-decorrelated ParticleNet tagger for boosted $ \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ and $ \mathrm{c}\bar{\mathrm{c}} $ jets using LHC Run 2 data | Technical Report CMS-DP-2022-005, 2022 CDS |
|
| 98 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2023 CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001 |
CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001 |
| 99 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector | JINST 14 (2019) P07004 | CMS-JME-17-001 1903.06078 |
| 100 | J. Brehmer, K. Cranmer, G. Louppe, and J. Pavez | A guide to constraining effective field theories with machine learning | PRD 98 (2018) 052004 | 1805.00020 |
| 101 | G. Ke et al. | Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree | in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon et al., eds. Curran Associates, Inc, 2017 link |
|
| 102 | P. I. Frazier | A tutorial on bayesian optimization | 1807.02811 | |
| 103 | J. Butterworth et al. | PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC run II | JPG 43 (2016) 040 | 1510.03865 |
| 104 | CMS Collaboration | Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS | EPJC 81 (2021) 800 | CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927 |
| 105 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
| 106 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
| 107 | R. Barlow and C. Beeston | Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples | Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219 | |
| 108 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine | Submitted to Comput. Softw. Big Sci, 2024 | CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614 |
| 109 | W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby | The RooFit toolkit for data modeling | eConf C0303241 MOLT007, 2003 | physics/0306116 |
| 110 | L. Moneta et al. | The RooStats Project | PoS ACAT 057, 2010 link |
1009.1003 |
| 111 | ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group | Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 | CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011 | |
| 112 | A. L. Read | Presentation of search results: The CL$ _{\text{s}} $ technique | JPG 28 (2002) 2693 | |
| 113 | T. Junk | Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics | NIM A 434 (1999) 435 | hep-ex/9902006 |
| 114 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
| 115 | S. S. Wilks | The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses | The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 9 (1938) 60 | |
| 116 | F. U. Bernlochner, D. C. Fry, S. B. Menary, and E. Persson | Cover your bases: asymptotic distributions of the profile likelihood ratio when constraining effective field theories in high-energy physics | SciPost Phys. Core 6 (2023) 013 | 2207.01350 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|