Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-NPS-25-008 | ||
| Search for new phenomena in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentumin proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13.6 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 2026-07-25 | ||
| Abstract: A search is presented for new phenomena producing events with one or more energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV. The analysis uses 62 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data recorded with the CMS detector in 2022 and 2023. The observed event yields are consistent with standard model predictions, and upper limits are set on potential signal contributions. The results are interpreted in terms of the invisible Higgs boson branching fraction, simplified dark matter models, and models with large extra spatial dimensions. | ||
| Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Illustration of the control region constraints used in the analysis. The arrows denote theoretically and experimentally constrained relations among the inputs. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Comparison between data and simulation for the $ \mathrm{Z}(\ell\ell) $/$ \mathrm{W}(\ell\nu) $ (left) and $ \mathrm{Z}(\ell\ell) $/$ \gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the $ \mathrm{Z}(\ell\ell) $/$ \mathrm{W}(\ell\nu) $ (left) and $ \mathrm{Z}(\ell\ell) $/$ \gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the $ \mathrm{Z}(\ell\ell) $/$ \mathrm{W}(\ell\nu) $ (left) and $ \mathrm{Z}(\ell\ell) $/$ \gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Distribution of hadronic recoil $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the SR before the fit and after the background-only fit. Signal predictions are overlaid for $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{inv.} $ with a branching fraction of 10%, and for a DM model with $ M_{\text{med}}^{\text{vec}}= $ 2 TeV and a DM particle mass of 1 GeV, where the superscript ``vec'' denotes a vector mediator. The DM signal prediction is normalized to a signal cross section of $ \sigma= $ 10 fb. The lower panels display the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Distributions of $ \text{hadronic recoil} p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the control regions before the fit and after the background-only fit. The panels correspond to the 1e CR, 1$\mu $ CR, 2e CR, 2$\mu $ CR, and 1$ \gamma $ CR regions, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Distributions of $ \text{hadronic recoil} p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the control regions before the fit and after the background-only fit. The panels correspond to the 1e CR, 1$\mu $ CR, 2e CR, 2$\mu $ CR, and 1$ \gamma $ CR regions, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Distributions of $ \text{hadronic recoil} p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the control regions before the fit and after the background-only fit. The panels correspond to the 1e CR, 1$\mu $ CR, 2e CR, 2$\mu $ CR, and 1$ \gamma $ CR regions, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
Distributions of $ \text{hadronic recoil} p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the control regions before the fit and after the background-only fit. The panels correspond to the 1e CR, 1$\mu $ CR, 2e CR, 2$\mu $ CR, and 1$ \gamma $ CR regions, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
Distributions of $ \text{hadronic recoil} p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the control regions before the fit and after the background-only fit. The panels correspond to the 1e CR, 1$\mu $ CR, 2e CR, 2$\mu $ CR, and 1$ \gamma $ CR regions, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-e:
Distributions of $ \text{hadronic recoil} p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the control regions before the fit and after the background-only fit. The panels correspond to the 1e CR, 1$\mu $ CR, 2e CR, 2$\mu $ CR, and 1$ \gamma $ CR regions, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio and pull of data relative to the prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Exclusion upper limits at 95% CL on the signal strength $ \mu=\sigma/\sigma_{\text{theo}} $ in the $ M_{\text{med}} $--$ M_{\text{DM}} $ plane for coupling values of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 0.25 and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0. The upper (lower) figure shows the result for the axial-vector (vector) mediator hypothesis. The black solid and dashed lines indicate the observed and median expected exclusion contours for $ \mu= $ 1, while the surrounding black contours show the 68 and 95% expected intervals. The red dashed line indicates the kinematic threshold $ M_{\text{med}}=2M_{\text{DM}} $, above which only off-shell mediator production contributes. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
Exclusion upper limits at 95% CL on the signal strength $ \mu=\sigma/\sigma_{\text{theo}} $ in the $ M_{\text{med}} $--$ M_{\text{DM}} $ plane for coupling values of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 0.25 and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0. The upper (lower) figure shows the result for the axial-vector (vector) mediator hypothesis. The black solid and dashed lines indicate the observed and median expected exclusion contours for $ \mu= $ 1, while the surrounding black contours show the 68 and 95% expected intervals. The red dashed line indicates the kinematic threshold $ M_{\text{med}}=2M_{\text{DM}} $, above which only off-shell mediator production contributes. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
Exclusion upper limits at 95% CL on the signal strength $ \mu=\sigma/\sigma_{\text{theo}} $ in the $ M_{\text{med}} $--$ M_{\text{DM}} $ plane for coupling values of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 0.25 and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0. The upper (lower) figure shows the result for the axial-vector (vector) mediator hypothesis. The black solid and dashed lines indicate the observed and median expected exclusion contours for $ \mu= $ 1, while the surrounding black contours show the 68 and 95% expected intervals. The red dashed line indicates the kinematic threshold $ M_{\text{med}}=2M_{\text{DM}} $, above which only off-shell mediator production contributes. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Exclusion upper limits at 95% CL on the signal strength $ \mu=\sigma/\sigma_{\text{theo}} $ as a function of $ M_{\text{med}} $ for coupling values of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 1.0 and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0, for a constant $ M_{\text{DM}}= $ 1 GeV. The upper (lower) figure shows the result for the scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator hypothesis. The black solid and dashed lines indicate the observed and median expected limits, while the blue and orange bands show the 68 and 95% expected intervals. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
Exclusion upper limits at 95% CL on the signal strength $ \mu=\sigma/\sigma_{\text{theo}} $ as a function of $ M_{\text{med}} $ for coupling values of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 1.0 and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0, for a constant $ M_{\text{DM}}= $ 1 GeV. The upper (lower) figure shows the result for the scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator hypothesis. The black solid and dashed lines indicate the observed and median expected limits, while the blue and orange bands show the 68 and 95% expected intervals. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
Exclusion upper limits at 95% CL on the signal strength $ \mu=\sigma/\sigma_{\text{theo}} $ as a function of $ M_{\text{med}} $ for coupling values of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 1.0 and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0, for a constant $ M_{\text{DM}}= $ 1 GeV. The upper (lower) figure shows the result for the scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator hypothesis. The black solid and dashed lines indicate the observed and median expected limits, while the blue and orange bands show the 68 and 95% expected intervals. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the fundamental Planck scale $ {M_\mathrm{D}} $ in the ADD scenario for different values of the number of extra dimensions $ N_{\text{d}} $. The black points indicate the observed limits, while the green and orange bands show the 68 and 95% intervals around the median expected limits. |
png pdf |
Figure A1:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-1$\mu$ CR (left) and SR-to-1e CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A1-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-1$\mu$ CR (left) and SR-to-1e CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A1-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-1$\mu$ CR (left) and SR-to-1e CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A2:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-2$ \mu$ CR (left) and SR-to-2e CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A2-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-2$ \mu$ CR (left) and SR-to-2e CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A2-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-2$ \mu$ CR (left) and SR-to-2e CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A3:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-$ \gamma $ CR (left) and $ \mathrm{W}(\ell\nu) $-to-$ \gamma $ CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A3-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-$ \gamma $ CR (left) and $ \mathrm{W}(\ell\nu) $-to-$ \gamma $ CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A3-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the SR-to-$ \gamma $ CR (left) and $ \mathrm{W}(\ell\nu) $-to-$ \gamma $ CR (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A4:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 2$\mu$ CR-to-1$\mu$ (left) and 2e CR-to-1e (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A4-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 2$\mu$ CR-to-1$\mu$ (left) and 2e CR-to-1e (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A4-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 2$\mu$ CR-to-1$\mu$ (left) and 2e CR-to-1e (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A5:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 1$ \mu $ CR-to-1e (left) and 2$ \mu $ CR-to-2e (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A5-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 1$ \mu $ CR-to-1e (left) and 2$ \mu $ CR-to-2e (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A5-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 1$ \mu $ CR-to-1e (left) and 2$ \mu $ CR-to-2e (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A6:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 1$ \mu $ CR-to-$1\gamma$ (left) and 1e CR-to-1$\gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A6-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 1$ \mu $ CR-to-$1\gamma$ (left) and 1e CR-to-1$\gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A6-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 1$ \mu $ CR-to-$1\gamma$ (left) and 1e CR-to-1$\gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A7:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 2$ \mu $ CR-to-1$ \gamma $ (left) and 2e CR-to-1$ \gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A7-a:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 2$ \mu $ CR-to-1$ \gamma $ (left) and 2e CR-to-1$ \gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure A7-b:
Comparison between data and simulation for the 2$ \mu $ CR-to-1$ \gamma $ (left) and 2e CR-to-1$ \gamma $ (right) yield ratios. The black points represent data, while the white solid line indicates the pre-fit simulation prediction. In both the upper and lower panels, the blue bands show the total pre-fit uncertainty in the simulation prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of data to the simulation prediction. |
| Summary |
| A search for new phenomena in events with one or more energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum has been presented. A data set of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 62 fb$ ^{-1} $, is analyzed. A simultaneous maximum likelihood fit to the signal and control regions is used to constrain the standard model background processes and to extract a possible signal contribution. The data are found to be in good agreement with the background prediction, with no evidence for a significant excess. The result is interpreted in terms of exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the parameters of several models of beyond-the-standard-model physics. For a standard model-like Higgs boson decaying to invisible particles, an observed (expected) upper limit of 42% (39%) is obtained on $ \mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}\to\text{inv.}) $. In simplified models of dark matter (DM) production via a spin-1 $ s $-channel mediator, mediator masses of up to about 2 TeV are excluded for light DM masses, assuming couplings of $ g_{\text{q}}= $ 0.25 between the mediator and quarks and $ g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0 between the mediator and the DM particles. In a pseudoscalar spin-0 mediator model, mediator masses below about 450 GeV are excluded for $ g_{\text{q}}=g_{\text{DM}}= $ 1.0 and $ M_{\text{DM}}= $ 1 GeV, while the scalar scenario is not excluded in the mass range considered. In the Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali (ADD) model, lower limits on the fundamental Planck scale $ {M_\mathrm{D}} $ ranging from about 10.6 to 5.1 TeV are obtained for scenarios with between 2 and 7 extra dimensions. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk | Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints | Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279 | hep-ph/0404175 |
| 2 | J. L. Feng | Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection | Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48 (2010) 495 | 1003.0904 |
| 3 | T. A. Porter, R. P. Johnson, and P. W. Graham | Dark Matter Searches with Astroparticle Data | Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 49 (2011) 155 | 1104.2836 |
| 4 | N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali | The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter | PLB 429 (1998) 263 | hep-ph/9803315 |
| 5 | N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali | Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with submillimeter dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity | PRD 59 (1999) 086004 | hep-ph/9807344 |
| 6 | I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, and M. Quiros | Direct collider signatures of large extra dimensions | PLB 460 (1999) 176 | hep-ph/9905311 |
| 7 | G. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, and J. Wells | Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders | NPB 544 (1999) 3 | hep-ph/9811291 |
| 8 | E. Mirabelli, M. Perelstein, and M. Peskin | Collider signatures of new large space dimensions | PRL 82 (1999) 2236 | hep-ph/9811337 |
| 9 | A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini, and J. Quevillon | Implications of LHC searches for Higgs--portal dark matter | PLB 709 (2012) 65 | 1112.3299 |
| 10 | O. Lebedev, H. M. Lee, and Y. Mambrini | Vector Higgs-portal dark matter and the invisible Higgs | PLB 707 (2012) 570 | 1111.4482 |
| 11 | S. Kanemura, S. Matsumoto, T. Nabeshima, and N. Okada | Can WIMP Dark Matter overcome the Nightmare Scenario? | PRD 82 (2010) 055026 | 1005.5651 |
| 12 | GAMBIT Collaboration | Status of the scalar singlet dark matter model | EPJC 77 (2017) 568 | 1705.07931 |
| 13 | Particle Data Group Collaboration | Review of Particle Physics | Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 41 (2026) 2630011 | |
| 14 | CMS Collaboration | Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 11 (2021) 153 | CMS-EXO-20-004 2107.13021 |
| 15 | J. M. Lindert et al. | Precise predictions for $ V+ $ jets dark matter backgrounds | Eur. Phys. J. 77 (2017) 829 | 1705.04664 |
| 16 | A. Albert et al. | Recommendations of the LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Comparing LHC searches for dark matter mediators in visible and invisible decay channels and calculations of the thermal relic density | Phys. Dark Univ. 26 (2019) 100377 | 1703.05703 |
| 17 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 18 | CMS Collaboration | Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 | JINST 19 (2024) P05064 | CMS-PRF-21-001 2309.05466 |
| 19 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 20 | 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 |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC run 2 | JINST 19 (2024) P11021 | CMS-TRG-19-001 2410.17038 |
| 22 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 23 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 24 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 25 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | JINST 15 (2020) P09018 | CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503 |
| 26 | D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran | Pileup per particle identification | JHEP 10 (2014) 059 | 1407.6013 |
| 27 | 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 |
| 28 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in Lorentz-boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JINST 20 (2025) P11006 | CMS-BTV-22-001 2510.10228 |
| 29 | 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 |
| 30 | 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 |
| 31 | R. Frederix and S. Frixione | Merging meets matching in MC@NLO | JHEP 12 (2012) 061 | 1209.6215 |
| 32 | Sherpa Collaboration | Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2 | SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034 | 1905.09127 |
| 33 | S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, M. Schoenherr, and F. Siegert | QCD matrix elements + parton showers: The NLO case | JHEP 04 (2013) 027 | 1207.5030 |
| 34 | K. Arnold et al. | VBFNLO: A Parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons | Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1661 | 0811.4559 |
| 35 | T. Sjöstrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 36 | T. Gehrmann et al. | $ W^+W^- $ Production at Hadron Colliders in Next to Next to Leading Order QCD | PRL 113 (2014) 212001 | 1408.5243 |
| 37 | F. Cascioli et al. | ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD | PLB 735 (2014) 311 | 1405.2219 |
| 38 | J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams | Vector Boson Pair Production at the LHC | JHEP 07 (2011) 018 | 1105.0020 |
| 39 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 40 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: The POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 41 | 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 |
| 42 | 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 |
| 43 | E. Re | Single-top $ {\mathrm{W}}{\mathrm{t}} $-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method | EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 | 1009.2450 |
| 44 | M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov | Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through $ O(\alpha^4_S) $ | PRL 110 (2013) 252004 | 1303.6254 |
| 45 | S. Catani et al. | Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO | JHEP 07 (2019) 100 | 1906.06535 |
| 46 | E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini | Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM | JHEP 02 (2012) 088 | 1111.2854 |
| 47 | P. Nason and C. Oleari | NLO Higgs boson production via vector-boson fusion matched with shower in POWHEG | JHEP 02 (2010) 037 | 0911.5299 |
| 48 | G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano | $ HW^{\pm} $/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 |
| 49 | A. Karlberg et al. | Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13.6 TeV | 2402.09955 | |
| 50 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | EPJC 80 (2020) 4 | CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 51 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 52 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT 4 --- A simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 53 | 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 |
| 54 | 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 |
| 55 | 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 |
| 56 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS Statistical Analysis and Combination Tool: COMBINE | Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 | CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614 |
| 57 | W. Verkerke and D. Kirkby | The RooFit toolkit for data modeling | in th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP ): La Jolla CA, United States, March 24--28, 2003 Proc. 1 (2003) 3 |
physics/0306116 |
| 58 | L. Moneta et al. | The RooStats project | in th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT ): Jaipur, India, February 22--27, 2010 Proc. 1 (2010) 3 |
1009.1003 |
| 59 | ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group | Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 | Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011 | |
| 60 | T. Junk | Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics | NIM A 434 (1999) 435 | hep-ex/9902006 |
| 61 | A. L. Read | Presentation of search results: The CL$ _{\text{s}} $ technique | JPG 28 (2002) 2693 | |
| 62 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
| 63 | D. de Florian et al. | Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector | CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016 link |
1610.07922 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|