Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-HIG-25-018 | ||
| Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $ \mathrm{b\bar{b}WW} $ decay channel with two leptons in the final state using proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}=13.6 \text{TeV} $ | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 2026-02-04 | ||
| Abstract: A search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production is presented, targeting final states where one Higgs boson decays to a pair of bottom quarks and the other Higgs boson decays to two W bosons, both of which decay leptonically (to an electron or a muon and a neutrino). For the first time, the search is conducted with proton-proton collision data from the LHC at $ \sqrt{s}=13.6 \text{TeV} $. The data have been recorded by the CMS detector in 2022 and 2023, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 62 fb$ ^{-1} $. The data are consistent with standard model predictions. An upper limit is set on the Higgs boson pair production cross section of 12.7 times the standard model prediction at 95% confidence level, with an expected limit of 18.6. The results are also used to constrain the strength of the trilinear coupling of the Higgs boson as well as of the quartic coupling between two Higgs bosons and two vector bosons. | ||
| Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Illustration of the event categorisation: SRs are depicted in red, background CRs in blue. Details of the NNs are described in the text. The binary NN output distributions (O) and the event yields (Y) in the CRs enter the final fit as sensitive observables. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Approximate invariant mass (top left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (top right) of the H boson candidate decaying to $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $, reconstructed as the invariant mass and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, respectively, of the two jets with the highest b tagging score; approximate invariant mass of the HH system (bottom left), reconstructed as the invariant mass of the two jets with the highest b tagging score, the two leptons, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $; and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet with the highest b tagging score (bottom right), for events in the analysis region observed in data (markers) and predicted by the background model (stacked histograms) prior to the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels as predicted in the SM, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow events. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Approximate invariant mass (top left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (top right) of the H boson candidate decaying to $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $, reconstructed as the invariant mass and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, respectively, of the two jets with the highest b tagging score; approximate invariant mass of the HH system (bottom left), reconstructed as the invariant mass of the two jets with the highest b tagging score, the two leptons, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $; and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet with the highest b tagging score (bottom right), for events in the analysis region observed in data (markers) and predicted by the background model (stacked histograms) prior to the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels as predicted in the SM, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow events. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Approximate invariant mass (top left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (top right) of the H boson candidate decaying to $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $, reconstructed as the invariant mass and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, respectively, of the two jets with the highest b tagging score; approximate invariant mass of the HH system (bottom left), reconstructed as the invariant mass of the two jets with the highest b tagging score, the two leptons, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $; and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet with the highest b tagging score (bottom right), for events in the analysis region observed in data (markers) and predicted by the background model (stacked histograms) prior to the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels as predicted in the SM, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow events. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-c:
Approximate invariant mass (top left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (top right) of the H boson candidate decaying to $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $, reconstructed as the invariant mass and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, respectively, of the two jets with the highest b tagging score; approximate invariant mass of the HH system (bottom left), reconstructed as the invariant mass of the two jets with the highest b tagging score, the two leptons, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $; and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet with the highest b tagging score (bottom right), for events in the analysis region observed in data (markers) and predicted by the background model (stacked histograms) prior to the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels as predicted in the SM, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow events. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-d:
Approximate invariant mass (top left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (top right) of the H boson candidate decaying to $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $, reconstructed as the invariant mass and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, respectively, of the two jets with the highest b tagging score; approximate invariant mass of the HH system (bottom left), reconstructed as the invariant mass of the two jets with the highest b tagging score, the two leptons, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $; and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet with the highest b tagging score (bottom right), for events in the analysis region observed in data (markers) and predicted by the background model (stacked histograms) prior to the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels as predicted in the SM, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty band represents the total (statistical and systematic) uncertainty. The last bin includes the overflow events. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
The $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the dilepton system in the DY validation region before (left) and after (right) application of the DY corrections. The error band shows the total uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
The $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the dilepton system in the DY validation region before (left) and after (right) application of the DY corrections. The error band shows the total uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
The $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the dilepton system in the DY validation region before (left) and after (right) application of the DY corrections. The error band shows the total uncertainty. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Observed (points) and expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (NN score or category yield) bin before (top) and after (bottom) the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the to the expected background yields. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Observed (points) and expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (NN score or category yield) bin before (top) and after (bottom) the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the to the expected background yields. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Observed (points) and expected (filled histograms) yields in each discriminant (NN score or category yield) bin before (top) and after (bottom) the fit to data. The HH signal distributions in the $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\text{F} $ and $ \text{VBF} $ production channels, scaled to the total background yield for better visibility, are overlayed (solid lines). The uncertainty bands include the total uncertainty of the fit model. The lower pads show the ratio of the data to the to the expected background yields. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Observed (solid black line) and median expected (dashed black line) upper limits at 95% CL on the inclusive HH production cross section as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (top) and as a function of $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (bottom); in both cases, all respective other couplings are fixed to the SM prediction. The yellow (blue) bands show the 68% (95%) confidence level intervals of the expected limit. The predicted cross section is overlayed (red curve), and the SM prediction is indicated (red star). |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
Observed (solid black line) and median expected (dashed black line) upper limits at 95% CL on the inclusive HH production cross section as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (top) and as a function of $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (bottom); in both cases, all respective other couplings are fixed to the SM prediction. The yellow (blue) bands show the 68% (95%) confidence level intervals of the expected limit. The predicted cross section is overlayed (red curve), and the SM prediction is indicated (red star). |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
Observed (solid black line) and median expected (dashed black line) upper limits at 95% CL on the inclusive HH production cross section as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (top) and as a function of $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (bottom); in both cases, all respective other couplings are fixed to the SM prediction. The yellow (blue) bands show the 68% (95%) confidence level intervals of the expected limit. The predicted cross section is overlayed (red curve), and the SM prediction is indicated (red star). |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Observed (blue) and expected (orange) negative log-likelihood values as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right), assuming all other couplings conform to the SM prediction. The solid line includes the full uncertainty model, while the dashed line only includes statistical uncertainties. The vertical lines indicate the best-fit values and the SM prediction (red star). |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
Observed (blue) and expected (orange) negative log-likelihood values as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right), assuming all other couplings conform to the SM prediction. The solid line includes the full uncertainty model, while the dashed line only includes statistical uncertainties. The vertical lines indicate the best-fit values and the SM prediction (red star). |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
Observed (blue) and expected (orange) negative log-likelihood values as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ (left) and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $ (right), assuming all other couplings conform to the SM prediction. The solid line includes the full uncertainty model, while the dashed line only includes statistical uncertainties. The vertical lines indicate the best-fit values and the SM prediction (red star). |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Observed (blue) and expected (orange) negative log-likelihood contours as a function of $ \kappa_{\lambda} $ and $ \kappa_{2\mathrm{V}} $, assuming all other couplings conform to the SM prediction. Shown are the best-fit points (marker) and the 68% (solide lines) and 95% (dashed lines) CL contours. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
Best fit values of the background normalisation and nuisance parameters (black markers). The nuisance parameter values are shown as the difference of their best-fit values, $ \theta_{\text{post}} $, and prefit values, $ \theta_{\text{pre}} $, relative to the prefit uncertainties $ \Delta\theta $. The impact (coloured areas) of the nuisance parameters on the HH signal strength is computed as the difference of the nominal best-fit value of the signal strength and the best-fit value obtained when fixing the nuisance parameter under scrutiny to its best-fit value $ \theta_{\text{post}} $ plus/minus its postfit uncertainty. The nuisance parameters are ordered by their impact, and only the 25 highest ranked parameters are shown. The number in parentheses for the jet energy scale and b tagging uncertainties correspond to a numbering of the data-taking period to which they are associated. The MC stat unc. refers to the systematic uncertainty due to the limited number of simulated events; in this case, the number in parentheses refers to the bin numbers shown in Fig. 4. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Baseline event selection criteria. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Hyperparameters of the neural networks. Where they differ for the multiclassification $ \text{NN}_{\text{cat}} $ and the binary $ \text{NN}_{\text{ggF}} $ and $ \text{NN}_{\text{VBF}} $, they are listed as ``$ \text{NN}_{\text{cat}} $/$ \text{NN}_{\text{ggF}} $/$ \text{NN}_{\text{VBF}} $'', otherwise they are the same for all networks. |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Observables used as input variables to the NNs. |
| Summary |
| A search has been presented for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $ \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{W} $ decay channel with two leptons in the final state, conducted with 62 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data. The data are consistent with standard model predictions. An upper limit is set on the Higgs boson pair production cross section of 12.7 times the standard model prediction at 95% confidence level, with an expectation of 18.6. Compared to a previous search by the CMS Collaboration with 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of Run 2 data in the same channel, significant improvements in sensitivity have been achieved, owing to a refined classification strategy, employment of additional triggers as well as an improved b tagging algorithm, leading to 30% better expected sensitivity despite the smaller analysed dataset. The cross section limit is further used to constrain the trilinear and quartic coupling of the Higgs boson between $ [-9.7,15.8] $ ($ [-13.4,19.9] $ expected) and $ [-0.27,2.32] $ ($ [-0.58,2.64] $ expected), respectively, at 95% CL The presented search is the first result with $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV data in this channel. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | 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 |
| 2 | 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 |
| 3 | 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 |
| 4 | ATLAS Collaboration | A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery | Nature 607 (2022) 52 | 2207.00092 |
| 5 | CMS Collaboration | A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery | Nature 607 (2022) 60 | CMS-HIG-22-001 2207.00043 |
| 6 | M. Grazzini et al. | Higgs boson pair production at NNLO with top quark mass effects | JHEP 05 (2018) 059 | 1803.02463 |
| 7 | A. Karlberg et al. | Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV | 2402.09955 | |
| 8 | J. Baglio et al. | $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\to\mathrm{H}\mathrm{H} $: Combined uncertainties | PRD 103 (2021) 056002 | 2008.11626 |
| 9 | F. A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, J.-N. Lang, and M. Pellen | Precise predictions for double-Higgs production via vector-boson fusion | EPJC 80 (2020) 1037 | 2005.13341 |
| 10 | F. A. Dreyer and A. Karlberg | Vector-boson fusion Higgs pair production at N$ ^3 $LO | PRD 98 (2018) 114016 | 1811.07906 |
| 11 | ATLAS Collaboration | Combination of searches for Higgs boson pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | PRL 133 (2024) 101801 | 2406.09971 |
| 12 | CMS Collaboration | Combination of searches for nonresonant Higgs boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | Submitted to Reports on Progress in Physics, 2025 | CMS-HIG-20-011 2510.07527 |
| 13 | ATLAS and CMS Collaborations | Combination of ATLAS and CMS searches for Higgs boson pair production at 13 TeV | ATLAS Conference Note ATLAS-CONF-2025-012, CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2025 CMS-PAS-HIG-25-014 |
CMS-PAS-HIG-25-014 |
| 14 | CMS Collaboration | Search for HH production decaying into two b quarks and two photons in pp collisions at 13.6 TeV with a partial CMS Run 3 dataset | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2025 CMS-PAS-HIG-25-007 |
CMS-PAS-HIG-25-007 |
| 15 | CMS Collaboration | Improved results on Higgs boson pair production in the 4b final state | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2025 CMS-PAS-HIG-24-010 |
CMS-PAS-HIG-24-010 |
| 16 | ATLAS Collaboration | Study of Higgs boson pair production in the $ HH \rightarrow b \overline{b} \gamma\gamma $ final state with 308 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data collected at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV and 13.6 TeV by the ATLAS experiment | Submitted to Phys. Lett. B., 2025 | 2507.03495 |
| 17 | CMS Collaboration | Search for Higgs boson pair production in the $ \textrm{b}\overline{\textrm{b}}{\textrm{W}}^{+}{\textrm{W}}^{-} $ decay mode in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2024) 293 | CMS-HIG-21-005 2403.09430 |
| 18 | ATLAS Collaboration | Search for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production in the 2 $ b+2\ell+{E}_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{miss}} $ final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 02 (2024) 037 | 2310.11286 |
| 19 | LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group | Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 3. Higgs properties | link | 1307.1347 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 22 | CMS Collaboration | Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 | JINST 19 (2024) P05064 | |
| 23 | 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 |
| 24 | 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 |
| 25 | CMS Collaboration | ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020 CDS |
|
| 26 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | JINST 15 (2020) P09018 | CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503 |
| 27 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 28 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 29 | D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran | Pileup per particle identification | JHEP 10 (2014) 059 | 1407.6013 |
| 30 | 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 |
| 31 | H. Qu and L. Gouskos | ParticleNet: Jet tagging via particle clouds | PRD 101 (2020) 056019 | 1902.08570 |
| 32 | CMS Collaboration | Run 3 commissioning results of heavy-flavor jet tagging at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV with CMS data using a modern framework for data processing | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-024, 2024 CDS |
|
| 33 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2023 CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001 |
CMS-PAS-BTV-22-001 |
| 34 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV | JINST 13 (2018) P05011 | CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158 |
| 35 | CMS Collaboration | Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from 2022 proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV with the CMS detector | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-025, 2024 CDS |
|
| 36 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 37 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: The POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 38 | 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 |
| 39 | T. Je \v z o and P. Nason | On the treatment of resonances in next-to-leading order calculations matched to a parton shower | JHEP 12 (2015) 065 | 1509.09071 |
| 40 | 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 |
| 41 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 42 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 43 | C. Bierlich et al. | A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 | SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8 | 2203.11601 |
| 44 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA 8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | EPJC 80 (2020) 4 | CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 45 | G. Heinrich et al. | NLO predictions for Higgs boson pair production with full top quark mass dependence matched to parton showers | JHEP 08 (2017) 088 | 1703.09252 |
| 46 | G. Heinrich et al. | Probing the trilinear Higgs boson coupling in di-Higgs production at NLO QCD including parton shower effects | JHEP 06 (2019) 066 | 1903.08137 |
| 47 | 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 |
| 48 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | PRD 97 (2018) 112003 | CMS-TOP-17-002 1803.08856 |
| 49 | CMS Collaboration | Differential cross section measurements for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets using dilepton events from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 02 (2025) 064 | CMS-TOP-20-006 2402.08486 |
| 50 | M. Czakon et al. | Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW | JHEP 10 (2017) 186 | 1705.04105 |
| 51 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections of single top quark production in association with a W boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV | JHEP 01 (2025) 107 | CMS-TOP-23-008 2409.06444 |
| 52 | M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn | Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation | NPB 855 (2012) 695 | 1109.1536 |
| 53 | M. Cacciari et al. | Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation | PLB 710 (2012) 612 | 1111.5869 |
| 54 | P. B รค rnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov | Percent-level-precision physics at the Tevatron: Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\to{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+X} $ | PRL 109 (2012) 132001 | 1204.5201 |
| 55 | M. Czakon and A. Mitov | NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: The all-fermionic scattering channels | JHEP 12 (2012) 054 | 1207.0236 |
| 56 | M. Czakon and A. Mitov | NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: The quark-gluon reaction | JHEP 01 (2013) 080 | 1210.6832 |
| 57 | M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov | Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^4) $ | PRL 110 (2013) 252004 | 1303.6254 |
| 58 | 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 |
| 59 | S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re | NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions | JHEP 09 (2009) 111 | 0907.4076 |
| 60 | E. Re | Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method | EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 | 1009.2450 |
| 61 | M. Aliev et al. | HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR | Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 1034 | 1007.1327 |
| 62 | P. Kant et al. | HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74 | 1406.4403 |
| 63 | N. Kidonakis | Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with $ \mathrm{W^-} $ or $ \mathrm{H}^{-} $ | PRD 82 (2010) 054018 | 1005.4451 |
| 64 | R. Frederix and S. Frixione | Merging meets matching in MC@NLO | JHEP 12 (2012) 061 | 1209.6215 |
| 65 | M. Erdmann, J. Glombitza, G. Kasieczka, and U. Klemradt | Deep Learning for Physics Research | WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2021 link |
|
| 66 | CMSnoop | Keras | \hrefF. Chollet et al., \urlhttps://keras.io, 2015 | |
| 67 | A. Ghorbani and J. Zou | Data Shapley: Equitable valuation of data for machine learning | link | 1904.02868 |
| 68 | M. Cacciari et al. | The t anti-t cross-section at 1.8-TeV and 1.96-TeV: A study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence | JHEP 04 (2004) 068 | hep-ph/0303085 |
| 69 | J. Butterworth et al. | PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II | JPG 43 (2016) 023001 | 1510.03865 |
| 70 | CMS Collaboration | Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV in 2022 at CMS | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024 CMS-PAS-LUM-22-001 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-22-001 |
| 71 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the offline integrated luminosity for the CMS proton-proton collision dataset recorded in 2023 | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-068, 2024 CDS |
|
| 72 | J. S. Conway | Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra | in PHYSTAT: Workshop on statistical issues related to discovery claims in search experiments and unfolding, 2011 link |
1103.0354 |
| 73 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine | Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 | CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614 |
| 74 | T. Junk | Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics | NIM A 434 (1999) 435 | hep-ex/9902006 |
| 75 | A. L. Read | Presentation of search results: The $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique | JPG 28 (2002) 2693 | |
| 76 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|