Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-SMP-24-003 | ||
| Combined effective field theory interpretation of Higgs boson, electroweak vector boson, top quark, and multi-jet measurements | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 26 September 2024 | ||
| Abstract: Constraints on the Wilson coefficients (WCs) corresponding to dimension-six operators of the standard model effective field theory (SMEFT) are determined from a simultaneous fit to seven sets of CMS measurements probing Higgs boson, electroweak vector boson, top quark, and multi-jet production. The measurements of the electroweak precision observables at LEP and SLC are also included and provide complementary constraints to those from CMS. The CMS measurements, using 36-138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of LHC proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV, are chosen to provide sensitivity to a broad set of operators, for which consistent SMEFT predictions can be derived. These are primarily measurements of differential cross sections or, in the case of Higgs boson production, simplified template cross sections, which are subsequently parametrized in the WCs. Measurements targeting $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}X} $ production model the SMEFT effects directly in the reconstructed observables. Individual constraints on 64 WCs, and constraints on 42 linear combinations of WCs, are obtained. In the case of the linear combinations, the 42 parameters are varied simultaneously. | ||
| Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures & Tables | Summary | Additional Tables | References | CMS Publications |
|---|
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Examples of SM processes modified by the SMEFT operator $ \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{W}} $: $ \mathrm{W}\gamma $ production (left), WW production (center), $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ decay (right). The WC $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ controls the strength of the interaction. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Examples of SM processes modified by the SMEFT operator $ \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{W}} $: $ \mathrm{W}\gamma $ production (left), WW production (center), $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ decay (right). The WC $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ controls the strength of the interaction. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Examples of SM processes modified by the SMEFT operator $ \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{W}} $: $ \mathrm{W}\gamma $ production (left), WW production (center), $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ decay (right). The WC $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ controls the strength of the interaction. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
Examples of SM processes modified by the SMEFT operator $ \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{W}} $: $ \mathrm{W}\gamma $ production (left), WW production (center), $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ decay (right). The WC $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ controls the strength of the interaction. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Relative effect of the linear SMEFT terms for the Wilson coefficients that affect the $ \mathrm{H}\to\gamma\gamma $ STXS bins. The top panel shows the measured values relative to the predictions in the SM. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Relative effect of the linear SMEFT terms for the Wilson coefficients that affect the $ \mathrm{W}\gamma $, $ \mathrm{Z}\to\nu\nu $, and WW differential cross sections. The top panel shows the measured values relative to the predictions in the SM. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Relative effect of the linear SMEFT terms for the Wilson coefficients that affect the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ differential cross sections. The top panel shows the measured values relative to the predictions in the SM. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Relative effect of the linear SMEFT terms for the Wilson coefficients that affect the electroweak precision observables. The top panel shows the measured values relative to the predictions in the SM. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Relative effect of the linear SMEFT terms for the Wilson coefficients that affect the inclusive jet differential cross sections in the rapidity bins $ (0, 0.5) $ and $ (0.5, 1) $. The top panel shows the measured values relative to the predictions in the SM. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Relative effect of the linear SMEFT terms for the Wilson coefficients that affect the inclusive jet differential cross sections in the rapidity bins $ (1, 1.5) $ and $ (1.5, 2) $. The top panel shows the measured values relative to the predictions in the SM. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
Diagonal entries $ H_{jj}^{p} $ of the Hessian matrix evaluated for each input channel. These indicate which of the input channels are expected to be the most sensitive to any given operator. Larger values of $ H_{jj}^{p} $ correspond to larger sensitivity. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
Rotation matrix obtained by performing the PCA on the Hessian matrix of the full set of measurements, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ analysis. |
png pdf |
Figure 10:
Constraints on linear combinations of WCs, for the hybrid fit including the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ analysis. The lower panel shows the contribution of different input measurements to the total constraints. Note that the constraints are scaled by powers of 10 to ensure the constraints on all 42 eigenvectors can be visualized on the same y-axis scale. |
png pdf |
Figure 11:
Constraints on individual WCs, for the hybrid fit including the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ analysis. The constraints for each Wilson coefficient are obtained keeping the other coefficients fixed to 0. The lower panel shows the contribution of different input measurements to the total constraints. Note that the constraints are scaled by powers of 10 to ensure the constraints on all 64 WCs can be visualized on the same y-axis scale. |
png pdf |
Figure 12:
95% CL lower limits on the scales $ \Lambda_j $ for the indicated values of the WCs $ c_j $. |
png pdf |
Figure 13:
Constraints on individual WCs, showing both the constraints considering only linear terms in the SMEFT parameterization and those considering both linear and quadratic terms. The constraints for each WC are obtained keeping the other coefficients fixed to 0. |
png pdf |
Figure 14:
Rotation matrix obtained by performing the PCA on the Hessian matrix of a reduced set of measurements, without the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ measurement included. |
png pdf |
Figure 15:
Constraints on linear combinations of WCs, from both the hybrid likelihood fit and the $ \mathcal{L}^{\text{simpl}} $ fit, excluding the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ analysis. The lower panel shows the contribution of different input measurements to the total constraints. |
png pdf |
Figure 16:
Constraints on individual WCs, from both the hybrid likelihood fit and the $ \mathcal{L}^{\text{simpl}} $ fit, excluding the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ analysis. The constraints for each WC are obtained keeping the other coefficients fixed to 0. The lower panel shows the contribution of different input measurements to the total constraints. |
png pdf |
Figure A1:
Observed likelihood scans for $ c_{\mathrm{HQ}}^{3} $, where linear terms dominate (upper left); $ c_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{u}} $, where quadratic terms dominate (upper right); and $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, where quadratic and linear terms both contribute (lower). The results with quadratic terms included in the parameterization (solid black line) and with linear terms only (dashed blue line) are shown. The solid grey lines indicate the sets of points $ q^{68\%} $(lower line) and $ q^{95\%} $ (upper line), while the dashed grey lines denote the test statistic values used to determine the 68% and 95% confidence intervals in the asymptotic approximation. The confidence intervals shown on the figures are the 68% confidence intervals extracted from the intersection of the linear+quadratic curve with the $ q^{68\%} $ line. |
png pdf |
Figure A1-a:
Observed likelihood scans for $ c_{\mathrm{HQ}}^{3} $, where linear terms dominate (upper left); $ c_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{u}} $, where quadratic terms dominate (upper right); and $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, where quadratic and linear terms both contribute (lower). The results with quadratic terms included in the parameterization (solid black line) and with linear terms only (dashed blue line) are shown. The solid grey lines indicate the sets of points $ q^{68\%} $(lower line) and $ q^{95\%} $ (upper line), while the dashed grey lines denote the test statistic values used to determine the 68% and 95% confidence intervals in the asymptotic approximation. The confidence intervals shown on the figures are the 68% confidence intervals extracted from the intersection of the linear+quadratic curve with the $ q^{68\%} $ line. |
png pdf |
Figure A1-b:
Observed likelihood scans for $ c_{\mathrm{HQ}}^{3} $, where linear terms dominate (upper left); $ c_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{u}} $, where quadratic terms dominate (upper right); and $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, where quadratic and linear terms both contribute (lower). The results with quadratic terms included in the parameterization (solid black line) and with linear terms only (dashed blue line) are shown. The solid grey lines indicate the sets of points $ q^{68\%} $(lower line) and $ q^{95\%} $ (upper line), while the dashed grey lines denote the test statistic values used to determine the 68% and 95% confidence intervals in the asymptotic approximation. The confidence intervals shown on the figures are the 68% confidence intervals extracted from the intersection of the linear+quadratic curve with the $ q^{68\%} $ line. |
png pdf |
Figure A1-c:
Observed likelihood scans for $ c_{\mathrm{HQ}}^{3} $, where linear terms dominate (upper left); $ c_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{u}} $, where quadratic terms dominate (upper right); and $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, where quadratic and linear terms both contribute (lower). The results with quadratic terms included in the parameterization (solid black line) and with linear terms only (dashed blue line) are shown. The solid grey lines indicate the sets of points $ q^{68\%} $(lower line) and $ q^{95\%} $ (upper line), while the dashed grey lines denote the test statistic values used to determine the 68% and 95% confidence intervals in the asymptotic approximation. The confidence intervals shown on the figures are the 68% confidence intervals extracted from the intersection of the linear+quadratic curve with the $ q^{68\%} $ line. |
png pdf |
Figure A2:
Summary of best fit values and confidence intervals extracted with the asymptotic approximation (grey lines) and with the pseudo-experiment-based method described in this appendix (black lines). The intervals are generally compatible with each other, with only some small differences visible. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
SMEFT operators studied in this analysis, following the definitions of Ref. [8], where $ (q,u,d) $ denote quarks of the first two generations, $ (Q,t,b) $ quarks of the third generation, and $ (l,e,\nu) $ leptons of all three generations. $ H $ is the Higgs doublet, $ D $ represents a covariant derivative, $ X = G, W, B $ denotes a vector boson field strength tensor. $ \Psi $ represents fermion fields, with $ L $ and $ R $ indicating left- and right-handed fermions. An indication of the sensitivity of the input analyses to the different operators is given in Fig. 8. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Summary of input analysis characteristics |
png pdf |
Table 3:
SM parameters used in the event generation to derive the SMEFT parameterizations [66]. |
png pdf |
Table B1:
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on linear combinations of Wilson coefficients from the Hybrid fit with $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $. |
png pdf |
Table B2:
Expected and observed individual 95% CL limits on Wilson coefficients from the Hybrid fit with $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $. |
| Summary |
| A combined effective field theory interpretation of CMS data has been presented. This interpretation is based on a simultaneous fit of seven sets of CMS measurements that probe Higgs boson, electroweak vector boson, top quark, and multi-jet production, and also incorporates electroweak precision observable measurements from LEP and SLC. These input measurements were chosen to obtain sensitivity to a broad set of SMEFT operators. Out of 129 operators in the effective field theory basis considered in this note, the combined interpretation constrains 64 Wilson coefficients (WCs) individually. Simultaneous constraints were set on 42 linear combinations of WCs. The 95% confidence intervals range from around $ \pm $ 0.002 to $ \pm $ 10 for the constraints on the linear combinations of WCs, while for the individual WCs the constraints range from $ \pm $ 0.003 to $ \pm $ 20. These constraints are also translated into lower limits on the probed energy scale of new physics $ \Lambda $, for given values of the WCs. This combined interpretation yields improved constraints with respect to single-analysis results from CMS, for example for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $. In the fit that constrains the linear combination of WCs, The p-value for the compatibility with the SM is found to be 1.7%. |
| Additional Tables | |
png pdf |
Additional Table 1:
Linear parameterizations for the STXS $ \mathrm{q}\mathrm{q}\mathrm{H} $ bins. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 2:
Linear parameterizations for the STXS $ \mathrm{g}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{H} $ bins. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 3:
Linear parameterizations for the STXS VH leptonic bins (1 lepton). |
png pdf |
Additional Table 4:
Linear parameterizations for the STXS VH leptonic bins (2 leptons). |
png pdf |
Additional Table 5:
Linear parameterizations for the STXS $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{H} $ bins |
png pdf |
Additional Table 6:
Linear parameterizations for the STXS $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ bins |
png pdf |
Additional Table 7:
Linear parameterizations for the H decay modes. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 8:
Linear parameterizations for the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\nu\nu $ analysis. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 9:
Linear parameterizations for the WW analysis. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 10:
Linear parameterizations for the $ \mathrm{W}\gamma $ analysis. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 11:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for the bins with $ |y| < $ 0.5 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 967. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 12:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for the bins with $ |y| < $ 0.5 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 967. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 13:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for the bins with $ < 0.5 < |y| < $ 1.0 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 967 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 14:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for the bins with $ < 0.5 < |y| < $ 1.0 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 967 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 15:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for the bins with $ < 1.0 < |y| < $ 1.5 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 967 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 16:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for bins with $ < 1.0 < |y| < $ 1.5 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 967 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 17:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for bins with $ < 1.5 < |y| < $ 2.0 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 967 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 18:
Linear parameterizations for the inclusive jet measurement, for bins with $ < 1.5|y| < $ 2.0 and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 967 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 19:
Linear parameterizations for the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ measurement, for bins with $ M_{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} < $ 1000 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 20:
Linear parameterizations for the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ measurement, for bins with $ M_{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} > $ 1000 GeV. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 21:
Linear parameterizations for the electroweak precision observables. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 22:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement including the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis and their eigenvalues. Definitions of EV1-17. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 23:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement including the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis and their eigenvalues. Definitions of EV18-31. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 24:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement including the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis and their eigenvalues. Definitions of EV32-42. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 25:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement including the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis and their eigenvalues. Definitions of EV43-56. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 26:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement including the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis and their eigenvalues. Definitions of EV57-64. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 27:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement without the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis included and their eigenvalues. The eigenvectors are labelled $ \mathrm{EV}n' $ to distinguish them from the eigenvectors in the combination that does include the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ inputs. Definitions of EV1'-EV16'. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 28:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement without the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis included and their eigenvalues. The eigenvectors are labelled $ \mathrm{EV}n' $ to distinguish them from the eigenvectors in the combination that does include the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ inputs. Definitions of EV17'-EV31'. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 29:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement without the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis included and their eigenvalues. The eigenvectors are labelled $ \mathrm{EV}n' $ to distinguish them from the eigenvectors in the combination that does include the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ inputs. Definitions of EV32'-EV42'. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 30:
Definitions of eigenvectors in the measurement without the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ analysis included and their eigenvalues. The eigenvectors are labelled $ \mathrm{EV}n' $ to distinguish them from the eigenvectors in the combination that does include the $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{X} $ inputs. Definitions of EV43'-EV55'. |
| 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 | CMS Collaboration | Searches for Higgs boson production through decays of heavy resonances | Submitted to Phys. Rep, 2024 | 2403.16926 |
| 5 | ATLAS Collaboration | The quest to discover supersymmetry at the ATLAS experiment | Submitted to Phys. Rep, 2024 | 2403.02455 |
| 6 | ATLAS Collaboration | Exploration at the high-energy frontier: ATLAS Run 2 searches investigating the exotic jungle beyond the standard model | Submitted to Phys. Rep, 2024 | 2403.09292 |
| 7 | B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzyński, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek | Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian | JHEP 10 (2010) 085 | 1008.4884 |
| 8 | I. Brivio | SMEFTsim 3.0 -- a practical guide | JHEP 04 (2021) | 2012.11343 |
| 9 | 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 |
| 10 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of WH and ZH production in the $ \mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | EPJC 81 (2021) 178 | 2007.02873 |
| 11 | ATLAS Collaboration | Higgs boson production cross-section measurements and their EFT interpretation in the 4 $ \ell $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | [Errata: \DOI10.1140/epjc/s2-021-09116-6; \DOI10.1140/epjc/s2-020-08644-x], 2020 EPJC 80 (2020) 957 |
2004.03447 |
| 12 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive and differential t$ \overline{t} $\ensuremath\gamma cross sections in the single-lepton channel and EFT interpretation at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 12 (2021) 180 | CMS-TOP-18-010 2107.01508 |
| 13 | CMS Collaboration | Search for new physics using effective field theory in 13 TeV pp collision events that contain a top quark pair and a boosted Z or Higgs boson | PRD 108 (2023) 032008 | CMS-TOP-21-003 2208.12837 |
| 14 | CMS Collaboration | Probing effective field theory operators in the associated production of top quarks with a Z boson in multilepton final states at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 12 (2021) 083 | CMS-TOP-21-001 2107.13896 |
| 15 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of inclusive and differential cross-sections of $ t\bar{t}\gamma $ production in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | Submitted to JHEP, 2024 | 2403.09452 |
| 16 | ATLAS Collaboration | Evidence for the charge asymmetry in $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\rightarrow\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 08 (2023) 077 | 2208.12095 |
| 17 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of $ {\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow $ ZZ production cross sections and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | EPJC 81 (2021) 200 | CMS-SMP-19-001 2009.01186 |
| 18 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive and differential WZ production cross sections, polarization angles, and triple gauge couplings in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2022) 032 | CMS-SMP-20-014 2110.11231 |
| 19 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurement and interpretation of same-sign W boson pair production in association with two jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector | JHEP 04 (2024) 026 | 2312.00420 |
| 20 | ATLAS Collaboration | Differential cross-section measurements of the production of four charged leptons in association with two jets using the ATLAS detector | JHEP 01 (2024) 004 | 2308.12324 |
| 21 | N. Castro et al. | Experimental measurements and observables | LHC EFT WG Note CERN-LHCEFTWG-2022-001, CERN-LPCC-2022-05, 2022 | 2211.08353 |
| 22 | J. Ellis et al. | Top, Higgs, diboson and electroweak fit to the standard model effective field theory | JHEP 04 (2021) | 2012.02779 |
| 23 | R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter, and T. Hurth | A global analysis of the SMEFT under the minimal MFV assumption | Prepared for submission to JHEP, 2023 | 2311.04963 |
| 24 | I. Brivio et al. | From models to SMEFT and back? | SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 036 | 2108.01094 |
| 25 | E. Celada et al. | Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee | Submitted to JHEP, 2024 | 2404.12809 |
| 26 | CMS Collaboration | Search for physics beyond the standard model in top quark production with additional leptons in the context of effective field theory | JHEP 12 (2023) 068 | CMS-TOP-22-006 2307.15761 |
| 27 | ATLAS Collaboration | Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 139 fb$ ^{-1} $ of proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment | ATLAS Conference Note ATLAS-CONF-2021-053, 2021 | |
| 28 | ATLAS Collaboration | Combined effective field theory interpretation of Higgs boson and weak boson production and decay with ATLAS data and electroweak precision observables. | ATLAS Pub Note ATLAS-PHYS-PUB-2022-037, 2022 | |
| 29 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of Higgs boson production cross sections and couplings in the diphoton decay channel at $ \sqrt{{s}} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2021) 027 | CMS-HIG-19-015 2103.06956 |
| 30 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential $ t \bar{t} $ production cross sections in the full kinematic range using lepton+jets events from proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV | PRD 104 (2021) 092013 | CMS-TOP-20-001 2108.02803 |
| 31 | CMS Collaboration | W$ ^+ $W$ ^- $ boson pair production in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | PRD 102 (2020) 092001 | CMS-SMP-18-004 2009.00119 |
| 32 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of W$ ^\pm\gamma $ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV and effective field theory constraints | PRD 105 (2022) 052003 | CMS-SMP-20-005 2111.13948 |
| 33 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the Z boson differential production cross section using its invisible decay mode (Z $ \to \nu\bar{\nu} $) in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 05 (2021) 205 | CMS-SMP-18-003 2012.09254 |
| 34 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement and QCD analysis of double-differential inclusive jet cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JHEP 02 (2022) 142 | CMS-SMP-20-011 2111.10431 |
| 35 | ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD electroweak group, SLD heavy flavour group | Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance | Phys. Rep. 427 (2006) 257 | hep-ex/0509008 |
| 36 | T. Corbett, A. Helset, A. Martin, and M. Trott | EWPD in the SMEFT to dimension eight | JHEP 06 (2021) | 2102.02819 |
| 37 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 38 | CMS Collaboration | Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 | JINST 19 (2024) P05064 | CMS-PRF-21-001 2309.05466 |
| 39 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 40 | 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 |
| 41 | N. Berger et al. | Simplified template cross sections - stage 1.1 | LHCHXSWG note LHCHXSWG-2019-003, DESY-19-070, 6, 2019 link |
1906.02754 |
| 42 | G. Panico, F. Riva, and A. Wulzer | Diboson interference resurrection | PLB 776 (2018) 473 | 1708.07823 |
| 43 | A. Azatov, J. Elias-Mir \'o , Y. Reyimuaji, and E. Venturini | Novel measurements of anomalous triple gauge couplings for the LHC | JHEP 10 (2017) 027 | 1707.08060 |
| 44 | S. Catani et al. | Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO | JHEP 07 (2019) 100 | 1906.06535 |
| 45 | D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, F. Stober, and M. Wobisch | New features in version 2 of the fastNLO project | fastNLO Collaboration, in 20th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, 2012 link |
1208.3641 |
| 46 | fastNLO Collaboration | Theory-data comparisons for jet measurements in hadron-induced processes | Report DESY-11-150, FERMILAB-PUB-11-418-PPD, 9, 2011 link |
1109.1310 |
| 47 | D. Britzger et al. | NNLO interpolation grids for jet production at the LHC | EPJC 82 (2022) 930 | 2207.13735 |
| 48 | J. Currie, E. W. N. Glover, and J. Pires | Next-to-next-to leading order QCD predictions for single jet inclusive production at the LHC | PRL 118 (2017) 072002 | 1611.01460 |
| 49 | J. Currie et al. | Infrared sensitivity of single jet inclusive production at hadron colliders | JHEP 10 (2018) 155 | 1807.03692 |
| 50 | T. Gehrmann et al. | Jet cross sections and transverse momentum distributions with NNLOJET | PoS RADCOR 074, 2018 link |
1801.06415 |
| 51 | T.-J. Hou et al. | New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC | PRD 103 (2021) 014013 | 1912.10053 |
| 52 | S. Dulat et al. | New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics | PRD 93 (2016) 033006 | 1506.07443 |
| 53 | C. Bierlich et al. | Robust independent validation of experiment and theory: Rivet version 3 | SciPost Physics 8, 2020 link |
1912.05451 |
| 54 | 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 |
| 55 | 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 |
| 56 | J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al. | Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory | LHC TOP WG note CERN-LPCC-2018-01, 2018 | 1802.07237 |
| 57 | 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 |
| 58 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 link |
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
| 59 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 link |
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
| 60 | T. Sjöstrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 61 | I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott | The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools | JHEP 12 (2017) | 1709.06492 |
| 62 | R. Schoefbeck et al. | SMEFT predictions, event reweighting, and simulation | LHC EFT WG Note CERN-LHCEFTWG-2024-001, 2024 | 2406.14620 |
| 63 | C. Degrande et al. | Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory | PRD 103 (2021) | 2008.11743 |
| 64 | S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino | Electroweak corrections to Higgs boson decays to $ \gamma\gamma $ and $ W^+W^- $ in standard model EFT | PRD 98 (2018) 095005 | 1807.11504 |
| 65 | I. Brivio et al. | Electroweak input parameters | LHC EFT WG Note CERN-LPCC-2021-002, CERN-LHCEFTWG-2021-001, 2021 | 2111.12515 |
| 66 | Particle Data Group Collaboration | Review of particle physics | PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01 | |
| 67 | The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The 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 | |
| 68 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine | Accepted by Comput. Softw. Big Sci, 2024 | CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614 |
| 69 | W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby | The RooFit toolkit for data modeling | in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference for Computing in High-Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP03) link |
physics/0306116 |
| 70 | I. Brivio et al. | Truncation, validity, uncertainties | LHC EFT WG Note CERN-LHCEFTWG-2021-002, CERN-LPCC-2022-01, 2022 | 2201.04974 |
| 71 | ATLAS Collaboration | Differential $ t\overline{t} $ cross-section measurements using boosted top quarks in the all-hadronic final state with 139 fb$ ^{-1} $ of ATLAS data | JHEP 04 (2023) 080 | 2205.02817 |
| 72 | 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|