CMS-PAS-SMP-19-005 | ||
Observation and differential measurement of electroweak production of one photon and two jets in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV | ||
CMS Collaboration | ||
21 May 2025 | ||
Abstract: The first observation of electroweak production of a photon in association with two forward jets in proton-proton collisions is presented. The measurement uses data recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC during 2016-2018 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. The analysis is performed in a region enriched in production via vector boson fusion, with a requirement on the transverse momentum of the leading photon to exceed 200 GeV. The cross section is measured to be 202$ ^{+36}_{-32} $ fb, at a significance with respect to the null hypothesis that exceeds five standard deviations, and in agreement with the standard model prediction of 177 $ ^{+13}_{-12} $ fb. Differential cross sections are measured as a function of various observables. Limits are set on effective field theory operators that contribute to the $ \mathrm{W} \mathrm{W}\gamma $ vertex at dimension-six. The observed 95% confidence intervals for $ c_{W} $ and $ c_{WHB} $ are [0.11, 0.16] and [$-$1.6, 1.5], respectively. | ||
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; |
Figures | |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagram for EW $ \gamma \text{jj}$ production with a photon produced in vector-boson fusion. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 2:
Representative Feynman diagrams for photons produced in final state radiation (FSR, left) and initial state radiation (ISR, right). |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for photons produced in final state radiation (FSR, left) and initial state radiation (ISR, right). |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for photons produced in final state radiation (FSR, left) and initial state radiation (ISR, right). |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 3:
Representative Feynman diagrams for QCD-induced production of a photon and two jets. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for QCD-induced production of a photon and two jets. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for QCD-induced production of a photon and two jets. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 4:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 5:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 5-c:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 6:
The postfit BDT output distribution. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to simulation. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 7:
The gap rapidity fraction as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{veto}} $ in data and simulated samples for $ \gamma \text{jj}$ and QCD $ \gamma \text{j}$. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The theory predication, calculated using MG5+PYTHIA, together with the MC statistical uncertainties are shown by the colored band. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 8:
The BDT distribution in bins of the Zeppenfeld observable after the fit to the data is shown. Signal events from different Zeppenfeld ranges at truth level are represented by different colors, while different Zeppenfeld ranges at detector level are displayed as an overlaid distribution. The labels (1,2,3,4) in different shades of green correspond to increasing ranges of the Zeppenfeld observable at the truth level. The label out refers to signal events outside the defined phase space. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The hatched bands represent the systematic and total uncertainties on all simulated samples after the fit. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the simulation. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9-c:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9-d:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9-e:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 9-f:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 10:
The distribution of the DNN output trained for (left) $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and (right) $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ coefficients in data and simulation after the fit for the SM $ \gamma \text{jj}$ signal extraction. The black line shows the distribution for the $ \gamma \text{jj}$ process when non-zero values for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ or $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are used as indicated. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM simulation together with uncertainties. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 10-a:
The distribution of the DNN output trained for (left) $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and (right) $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ coefficients in data and simulation after the fit for the SM $ \gamma \text{jj}$ signal extraction. The black line shows the distribution for the $ \gamma \text{jj}$ process when non-zero values for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ or $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are used as indicated. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM simulation together with uncertainties. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 10-b:
The distribution of the DNN output trained for (left) $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and (right) $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ coefficients in data and simulation after the fit for the SM $ \gamma \text{jj}$ signal extraction. The black line shows the distribution for the $ \gamma \text{jj}$ process when non-zero values for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ or $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are used as indicated. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM simulation together with uncertainties. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 11:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 11-a:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 11-b:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels. |
![]() png pdf |
Figure 11-c:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels. |
Tables | |
![]() png pdf |
Table 1:
Event yields for the signal and background predictions with uncertainties compared with the event yield in the signal region in data. |
![]() png pdf |
Table 2:
Summary of uncertainties affecting the measurement as extracted from the fit to data. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding individual contributions in quadrature. |
Summary |
This note presents the first observation of the electroweak production of a photon and two jets ($ \gamma \text{jj}$ ) using proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV recorded with the CMS detector in 2016-2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Events are selected by requiring a high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ photon and two jets with a large separation in pseudorapidity and a large invariant mass. The measured inclusive $ \gamma \text{jj}$ cross section is $ \sigma_{{\gamma}\text{jj} }= $ 202 $ \pm $ 7 (stat) $ ^{+35}_{-32} $ (syst) fb to compare with the expected cross section of 177 $ ^{+13}_{-12} $ fb. Normalized differential cross sections are also measured as functions of several observables and compared to standard model predictions at next to leading order in perturbative QCD. Within the uncertainties, predictions agree with measurements in all observables except the pseudorapidity of tagging jets. In particular, measured normalized cross sections differ from prediction in the $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $ distribution by about two standard deviations. The gap fraction is measured in a signal-enriched region and found in agreement with the prediction, supporting the accuracy of the modeling of hadronic activities in VBF-like processes. A deep neural network is trained to probe new $ \mathrm{W} \mathrm{W} \gamma $ interactions in the context of an effective field theory, described by dimension-6 operators. The observed 95% confidence intervals for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are $ [-0.11,0.16] $ and $ [-1.6,1.5] $, respectively. These results provide the most stringent constraint on $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ in an experimental analysis. |
References | ||||
1 | M. Rauch | Vector-Boson fusion and Vector-Boson scattering | 1610.08420 | |
2 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the hadronic activity in events with a Z and two jets and extraction of the cross section for the electroweak production of a Z with two jets in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 TeV | JHEP 10 (2013) 062 | CMS-FSQ-12-019 1305.7389 |
3 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z-boson and distributions sensitive to vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector | JHEP 04 (2014) 031 | 1401.7610 |
4 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=8\,\text {TeV} $ | EPJC 75 (2015) 66 | CMS-FSQ-12-035 1410.3153 |
5 | CMS Collaboration | Electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 $ \,\text {TeV} $ | EPJC 78 (2018) 589 | CMS-SMP-16-018 1712.09814 |
6 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of the cross-section for electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt {s} $ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | PLB 775 (2017) 206 | 1709.10264 |
7 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson and two forward jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV | JHEP 11 (2016) 147 | CMS-SMP-13-012 1607.06975 |
8 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of electroweak $ Wjj $ production and constraints on anomalous gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector | EPJC 77 (2017) 474 | 1703.04362 |
9 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=13\,\text {Te}\text {V} $ | EPJC 80 (2020) 43 | CMS-SMP-17-011 1903.04040 |
10 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of isolated-photon plus two-jet production in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 03 (2020) 179 | 1912.09866 |
11 | ATLAS Collaboration | Observation and measurement of higgs boson decays to $ {WW}^{*} $ with the ATLAS detector | PRD 92 (2014) 012006 | 1412.2641 |
12 | D. L. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld | Probing color-singlet exchange in Z + 2-jet events at the CERN LHC | PRD 54 (1996) 6680 | hep-ph/9605444 |
13 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
14 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
15 | 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 | |
16 | S. Frixione | Isolated photons in perturbative QCD | PLB 429 (1998) 369 | hep-ph/9801442 |
17 | E. Bothmann et al. | Event generation with Sherpa 2.2 | SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034 | |
18 | T. Sjostrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
19 | CMS Collaboration | Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements | EPJC 76 (2016) 155 | CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815 |
20 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
21 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT 4-a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
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 | 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 |
|
24 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt(s) = $ 8 TeV | JINST 10 (2015) P08010 | CMS-EGM-14-001 1502.02702 |
25 | 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 |
26 | 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 |
27 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | |
28 | CMS Collaboration | CMS electron and photon performance at 13 tev | Conference Series 116 (2019) 2 | |
29 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
30 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet User Manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
31 | CMS Collaboration | Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV | JINST 12 (1900) P02014 | CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663 |
32 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=8\,\text {TeV} $ with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 2016 (2016) 5 | |
33 | J. H. Friedman | Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine | Annals of statistics (2001) 1189 | |
34 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE | Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 | CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614 |
35 | J. Butterworth et al. | PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II | JPG 43 (2016) 023001 | 1510.03865 |
36 | CMS Collaboration | Jet energy scale and resolution in the cms experiment in pp collisions at 8 tev | JINST 12 (2017) P02014 | |
37 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV | JINST 19 (2024) P09004 | CMS-EGM-18-002 2403.15518 |
38 | CMS Collaboration | Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS | Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C, 2021 | CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927 |
39 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | Technical Report , CERN, Geneva, 2018 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
40 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | Technical Report, CERN, Geneva, 2019 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
41 | 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 |
42 | R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston | Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples | Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219 | |
43 | J. Ellis | SMEFT Constraints on New Physics beyond the Standard Model | link | 2105.14942 |
44 | I. Brivio | SMEFTsim 3.0 -- a practical guide | JHEP 04 (2021) 073 | 2012.11343 |
45 | F. Chollet et al. | Keras | https://keras.io | |
46 | M. Abadi et al. | TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems | Software available from tensorflow.org https://www.tensorflow.org/ |
|
47 | CMS Collaboration | Electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=13\,\text {TeV} $ | EPJC 78 (2018) 589 | |
48 | ATLAS Collaboration | Differential cross-section measurements for the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at ATLAS | EPJC 81 (2021) 163 |
![]() |
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |