CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-B2G-20-008 ; CERN-EP-2021-158
Search for heavy resonances decaying to Z($ \nu\bar{\nu} $)V($ \mathrm{q}\mathrm{\bar{q}}' $) in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 012004
Abstract: A search is presented for heavy bosons decaying to Z($ \nu\bar{\nu} $)V($ \mathrm{q}\mathrm{\bar{q}}' $), where V can be a W or a Z boson. A sample of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV was collected by the CMS experiment during 2016-2018. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The event categorization is based on the presence of high-momentum jets in the forward region to identify production through weak vector boson fusion. Additional categorization uses jet substructure techniques and the presence of large missing transverse momentum to identify W and Z bosons decaying to quarks and neutrinos, respectively. The dominant standard model backgrounds are estimated using data taken from control regions. The results are interpreted in terms of radion, W' boson, and graviton models, under the assumption that these bosons are produced via gluon-gluon fusion, Drell-Yan, or weak vector boson fusion processes. No evidence is found for physics beyond the standard model. Upper limits are set at 95% confidence level on various types of hypothetical new bosons. Observed (expected) exclusion limits on the masses of these bosons range from 1.2 to 4.0 (1.1 to 3.7) TeV.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagrams for various production modes of a heavy resonance X. These modes are: a ggF-produced spin-0 or spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{Z Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} \nu \bar{\nu}}}$ (left), a DY-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (center), and a VBF-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (right).

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for various production modes of a heavy resonance X. These modes are: a ggF-produced spin-0 or spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{Z Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} \nu \bar{\nu}}}$ (left), a DY-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (center), and a VBF-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (right).

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for various production modes of a heavy resonance X. These modes are: a ggF-produced spin-0 or spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{Z Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} \nu \bar{\nu}}}$ (left), a DY-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (center), and a VBF-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (right).

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Representative Feynman diagrams for various production modes of a heavy resonance X. These modes are: a ggF-produced spin-0 or spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{Z Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} \nu \bar{\nu}}}$ (left), a DY-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (center), and a VBF-produced spin-1 resonance decaying to ${\mathrm{W Z} \to {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} '\nu \bar{\nu}}$ (right).

png pdf
Figure 2:
Simulated distributions are shown for the cosine of the decay angle of SM vector bosons in the rest frame of a parent particle with a mass ($m_\mathrm{X} $) of 2 TeV. Solid lines represent VBF scenarios. Dashed lines represent ggF/DY scenarios.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Distributions of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for ggF/DY- (left) and VBF-produced (right) resonances X of mass 4.5 TeV. Events used are from all SR and CR combined.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for ggF/DY-produced resonance X of mass 4.5 TeV. Events used are from all SR and CR combined.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for VBF-produced resonance X of mass 4.5 TeV. Events used are from all SR and CR combined.

png pdf
Figure 4:
The distributions of the transfer factors ($\alpha $) versus ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in the various event categories are shown. The last bin corresponds to the value obtained by integrating events above the penultimate bin.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Comparison of background estimations and observations in the high-purity ggF/DY (upper left), high-purity VBF (upper right), low-purity ggF/DY (lower left), and low-purity VBF (lower right) validation signal regions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the estimated and the observed event yields. The hashed band in the ratio represents the total uncertainty in the corresponding SR. The red line (lower left) is a fit to the ratio of prediction to the data in the LP ggF/DY vSR.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Comparison of background estimations and observations in the high-purity ggF/DY validation signal region. The lower panel shows the ratio of the estimated and the observed event yields. The hashed band in the ratio represents the total uncertainty in the corresponding SR.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Comparison of background estimations and observations in the high-purity VBF validation signal region. The lower panel shows the ratio of the estimated and the observed event yields. The hashed band in the ratio represents the total uncertainty in the corresponding SR.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Comparison of background estimations and observations in the low-purity ggF/DY validation signal region. The lower panel shows the ratio of the estimated and the observed event yields. The hashed band in the ratio represents the total uncertainty in the corresponding SR.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Comparison of background estimations and observations in the low-purity VBF validation signal region. The lower panel shows the ratio of the estimated and the observed event yields. The hashed band in the ratio represents the total uncertainty in the corresponding SR.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Distributions of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for high-purity ggF/DY (upper left) and VBF (upper right), and low-purity ggF/DY (lower left) and VBF (lower right) CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin in the upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right plot corresponds to the yields integrated above 3, 2.3, 3.5, and 2.7 TeV, respectively. The top panel of each plot shows the post-fit prediction, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown in each plot, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The middle panel of each plot shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The bottom panel of each plot shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for high-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above 3 TeV. The top panel shows the post-fit prediction, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for high-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above 2.3 TeV. The top panel shows the post-fit prediction, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for low-purity ggF/DY CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above 3.5 TeV. The top panel shows the post-fit prediction, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for low-purity VBF CR events after performing background-only fits. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above 2.7 TeV. The top panel shows the post-fit prediction, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Distribution of the predicted and observed event yields versus ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for high-purity ggF/DY (upper left) and VBF (upper right), and low-purity ggF/DY (lower left) and VBF (lower right) SR events. The last bin in each plot corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. The top panel of each plot shows the prediction based on a background-only fit to data, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown in each plot, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The middle panel of each plot shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The bottom panel of each plot shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Distribution of the predicted and observed event yields versus ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for high-purity ggF/DY SR events. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. The top panel shows the prediction based on a background-only fit to data, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown in each plot, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Distribution of the predicted and observed event yields versus ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for high-purity ggF/DY SR events. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. The top panel shows the prediction based on a background-only fit to data, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown in each plot, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Distribution of the predicted and observed event yields versus ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for low-purity ggF/DY SR events. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. The top panel shows the prediction based on a background-only fit to data, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown in each plot, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 7-d:
Distribution of the predicted and observed event yields versus ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for low-purity VBF SR events. The last bin corresponds to the yields integrated above the penultimate bin. The top panel shows the prediction based on a background-only fit to data, represented by filled histograms, compared to observed yields, represented by black points. Both the ggF and VBF-produced 1 TeV graviton signals are shown in each plot, represented by the open purple and red histograms, respectively. The signal is normalized to 10 fb. The middle panel shows the ratio of data and post-fit predictions in blue. The blue hashed area represents the total uncertainty from the post-fit predicted event yield as a function of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$. The bottom panel shows the difference between the observed event yields and the post-fit predictions normalized by the quadratic sum of the statistical uncertainty of the observed yield and the total uncertainty from the post-fit prediction in each ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bin.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production cross section and the $\mathrm{R} \to \mathrm{ZZ} $ branching fraction versus the radion mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical radion production cross sections and their branching fractions to ZZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices. Limits and theory cross sections for ggF-produced radions are shown in the left figure, while the right figure shows the same for VBF-produced radions.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Limits and theory cross sections for ggF-produced radions are shown. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production cross section and the $\mathrm{R} \to \mathrm{ZZ} $ branching fraction versus the radion mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical radion production cross sections and their branching fractions to ZZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Limits and theory cross sections for VBF-produced radions are shown. Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the radion (R) production cross section and the $\mathrm{R} \to \mathrm{ZZ} $ branching fraction versus the radion mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical radion production cross sections and their branching fractions to ZZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' production cross section and the $\mathrm{W'} \to W Z $ branching fraction versus the W' mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical W' boson production cross sections and their branching fractions to WZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices. Limits and theory cross sections for DY-produced W' bosons are shown in the left figure, while the right figure shows the same for VBF-produced W' bosons. The grey curves in the left plot show the previous CMS results with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of data.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' production cross section and the $\mathrm{W'} \to W Z $ branching fraction versus the W' mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical W' boson production cross sections and their branching fractions to WZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices. Limits and theory cross sections for DY-produced W' bosons are shown. The grey curves in the left plot show the previous CMS results with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of data.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the W' production cross section and the $\mathrm{W'} \to W Z $ branching fraction versus the W' mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent the 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical W' boson production cross sections and their branching fractions to WZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices. Limits and theory cross sections for VBF-produced W' bosons are shown. The grey curves in the left plot show the previous CMS results with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of data.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production cross section and the $\mathrm{G} \to \mathrm{ZZ} $ branching fraction versus the graviton mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical graviton production cross sections and their branching fractions to ZZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices. Limits and theory cross sections for ggF-produced gravitons are shown in the left figure, while the right figure shows the same for VBF-produced gravitons. The grey curves in the left plot show the previous CMS results with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of data.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production cross section and the $\mathrm{G} \to \mathrm{ZZ} $ branching fraction versus the graviton mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical graviton production cross sections and their branching fractions to ZZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of the graviton (G) production cross section and the $\mathrm{G} \to \mathrm{ZZ} $ branching fraction versus the graviton mass are shown as dashed and solid black lines, respectively. Green and yellow bands, respectively, represent 68% and 95% confidence intervals of the expected limit. The red curves show the product of the theoretical graviton production cross sections and their branching fractions to ZZ. The hashed red areas represent the theoretical cross section uncertainty due to limited knowledge of PDFs and scale choices.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Summary of the event selections.

png pdf
Table 2:
Summary of systematic uncertainties (in %) related to the SM background predictions in various regions. Columns two and three tabulate the representative size of effects on $\alpha $ in the VBF and ggF/DY events categories, respectively. Columns four through seven tabulate the typical size of effects on the prediction of resonant background yields in the VBF SR, VBF CR, ggF/DY SR, and ggF/DY CR, respectively. All of these numbers are the pre-fit values. For some systematic uncertainties, the variation in different ${m_{\mathrm {T}}}$ bins are shown as a range. Values of LP that are different from those of HP are shown in parentheses.

png pdf
Table 3:
Summary of the typical size of systematic uncertainties (in %) in the predicted signal yields in various regions. All of these numbers are the pre-fit values. A range is given for the shape systematic uncertainties. Values of LP that are different from those of HP are shown in parentheses.
Summary
A search has been presented for new bosonic states decaying either to a pair of Z bosons or to a W boson and a Z boson. The analyzed final states require large missing transverse momentum and one high-momentum, large-radius jet. Large-radius jets are required to have a mass consistent with either a W or Z boson. Events are categorized based on the presence of large-radius jets passing high-purity and low-purity substructure requirements. Events are also categorized based on the presence or absence of high-momentum jets in the forward region of the detector. Forward jets distinguish weak vector boson fusion (VBF) from other production mechanisms. Contributions from the dominant SM backgrounds are estimated from data control regions using an extrapolation method. No deviation between SM expectation and data is found, and 95% confidence level upper limits are set on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction for several signal models. A lower observed (expected) limit of 3.0 (2.5) TeV is set on the mass of gluon-gluon fusion produced radions. The observed (expected) mass exclusion limit for Drell-Yan produced W' bosons is found to be 4.0 (3.7) TeV. The observed (expected) mass exclusion limit for gluon-gluon fusion produced gravitons is found to be 1.2 (1.1) TeV. At 95% confidence level, upper observed (expected) limits on the product of the VBF production cross section and $\mathrm{X}\to \mathrm{Z}+\mathrm{W}/\mathrm{Z}$ branching fraction range between 0.2 and 20 (0.3 and 30) fb.
References
1 L. Randall and R. Sundrum Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension PRL 83 (1999) 3370 hep-ph/9905221
2 L. Randall and R. Sundrum An alternative to compactification PRL 83 (1999) 4690 hep-th/9906064
3 K. Agashe et al. LHC signals for warped electroweak charged gauge bosons PRD 80 (2009) 075007 0810.1497
4 K. Agashe et al. LHC signals for coset electroweak gauge bosons in warped/composite pseudo-Goldstone boson Higgs models PRD 81 (2010) 096002 0911.0059
5 K. Agashe et al. CERN LHC signals for warped electroweak neutral gauge bosons PRD 76 (2007) 115015 0709.0007
6 D. Pappadopulo, A. Thamm, R. Torre, and A. Wulzer Heavy vector triplets: Bridging theory and data JHEP 09 (2014) 060 1402.4431
7 N. Arkani-Hamed et al. The minimal moose for a little Higgs JHEP 08 (2002) 021 hep-ph/0206020
8 N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson The littlest Higgs JHEP 07 (2002) 034 hep-ph/0206021
9 G. Burdman, M. Perelstein, and A. Pierce Large Hadron Collider tests of the little Higgs model PRL 90 (2003) 241802 hep-ph/0212228
10 K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni Warped gravitons at the CERN LHC and beyond PRD 76 (2007) 036006 hep-ph/0701186
11 A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, L. Randall, and L.-T. Wang Searching for the Kaluza-Klein graviton in bulk RS models JHEP 09 (2007) 013 hep-ph/0701150
12 ATLAS Collaboration Searches for heavy ZZ and ZW resonances in the $ \ell\ell $qq and $ \nu\nu $qq final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2018) 009 1708.09638
13 CMS Collaboration Search for a heavy resonance decaying into a Z boson and a vector boson in the $ \nu \overline{\nu}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}} $ final state JHEP 07 (2018) 075 CMS-B2G-17-005
1803.03838
14 ATLAS Collaboration Search for heavy diboson resonances in semileptonic final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 80 (2020) 1165 2004.14636
15 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
16 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
17 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
18 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
19 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
20 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
21 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
22 P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations JHEP 03 (2013) 015 1212.3460
23 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
24 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
25 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
26 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
27 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
28 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
29 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
30 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA 8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
31 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
32 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
33 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
34 T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi W$ ^+ $W$ ^- $, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX JHEP 11 (2011) 078 1107.5051
35 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
36 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
37 P. Barnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov Percent-level-precision physics at the Tevatron: Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{q\bar{q}}\to\mathrm{t\bar{t}} $+X PRL 109 (2012) 132001 1204.5201
38 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
39 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
40 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $ O({\alpha_S}^4) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
41 R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush W physics at the LHC with FEWZ 2.1 CPC 184 (2013) 208 1201.5896
42 R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order CPC 182 (2011) 2388 1011.3540
43 J. M. Lindert et al. Precise predictions for V+jets dark matter backgrounds EPJC 77 (2017) 829 1705.04664
44 S. Bolognesi et al. Spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC PRD 86 (2012) 095031 1208.4018
45 A. Oliveira Gravity particles from warped extra dimensions, predictions for LHC 2014 1404.0102
46 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
47 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
48 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
49 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \$ \sqrt{s} = $ $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
50 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
51 K. Rehermann and B. Tweedie Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC JHEP 03 (2011) 059 1007.2221
52 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
53 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
54 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup per particle identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
55 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
56 CMS Collaboration Jet performance in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV CDS
57 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
58 M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam Towards an understanding of jet substructure JHEP 09 (2013) 029 1307.0007
59 A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler Soft drop JHEP 05 (2014) 146 1402.2657
60 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy, energetic, hadronically decaying particles using machine-learning techniques JINST 15 (Jun, 2020) P06005 CMS-JME-18-002
2004.08262
61 J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg Identifying boosted objects with N-subjettiness JHEP 03 (2011) 015 1011.2268
62 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
63 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
64 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS 2021. Accepted by EPJC CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
65 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
66 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
67 P. Vischia Reporting results in high energy physics publications: A manifesto Rev. Phys. 5 (2020) 100046 1904.11718
68 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the CLs technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
69 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