CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-JME-24-001 ; CERN-EP-2025-193
Improving missing transverse momentum estimation with a deep neural network
Submitted to Phys. Rev. D
Abstract: At hadron colliders, the net transverse momentum of particles that do not interact with the detector (missing transverse momentum, $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $) is a crucial observable in many analyses. In the standard model, $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ originates from neutrinos. Many beyond-the-standard-model particles, such as dark matter candidates, are also expected to leave the experimental apparatus undetected. This paper presents a novel $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimator, DEEPMET, which is based on deep neural networks that were developed by the CMS Collaboration at the LHC. The DEEPMET algorithm produces a weight for each reconstructed particle based on its properties. The estimator is based on the negative vector sum of the weighted transverse momenta of all reconstructed particles in an event. Compared with other estimators currently employed by CMS, DEEPMET improves the $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ resolution by 10-30%, shows improvement for a wide range of final states, is easier to train, and is more resilient against the effects of additional proton-proton interactions accompanying the collision of interest.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The DEEPMET DNN architecture. For each event, all PF candidates in the event are considered as input. $ N\times n $ represents the number of PF candidates in the event multiplied by the dimensionality of the per-particle feature space, where $ n $ can be 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 32, and 64 in the architecture.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Recoil responses of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data (markers) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data (solid) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections. The systematic uncertainties for PUPPI $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ due to the JES, the JER, and $ E_U $ are added in quadrature and displayed with the gray band.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data (solid) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections. The systematic uncertainties for PUPPI $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ due to the JES, the JER, and $ E_U $ are added in quadrature and displayed with the gray band.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data (solid) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections. The systematic uncertainties for PUPPI $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ due to the JES, the JER, and $ E_U $ are added in quadrature and displayed with the gray band.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections in the region with $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ smaller than 50 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections in the region with $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ smaller than 50 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections in the region with $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ smaller than 50 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections in the region with $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ larger than 50 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections in the region with $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ larger than 50 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (right) vs. $ $ number of reconstructed PVs of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections in the region with $ q_{\mathrm{T}} $ larger than 50 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Response (upper), response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in W+jets MC simulations. Solid (dashed) lines are from events where the LPV is (in)correctly identified.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Response (upper), response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in W+jets MC simulations. Solid (dashed) lines are from events where the LPV is (in)correctly identified.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Response (upper), response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in W+jets MC simulations. Solid (dashed) lines are from events where the LPV is (in)correctly identified.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Response (upper), response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in W+jets MC simulations. Solid (dashed) lines are from events where the LPV is (in)correctly identified.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Distributions of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (left) and $ m_\mathrm{T} $ (right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after $ \mathrm{W}\to\mu\nu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Distributions of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (left) and $ m_\mathrm{T} $ (right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after $ \mathrm{W}\to\mu\nu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Distributions of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (left) and $ m_\mathrm{T} $ (right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after $ \mathrm{W}\to\mu\nu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 9-e:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 9-f:
Comparison of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ resolution for various physics processes in simulated events. The considered processes are HH production via gluon fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}\tau\tau $ (upper left), H production via vector boson fusion with $ \mathrm{H}\to\text{invisible} $ (upper right), $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{H} $ production with either $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ (middle left) or $ \mathrm{H}\to\mu\mu $ (middle right), the SMS T2b-4bd process (lower left), and the SMS TChiZZ process (lower right).

png pdf
Figure 10:
The $ \phi $ distribution of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators before (left) and after (right) the $ xy $ corrections, in data (markers) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
The $ \phi $ distribution of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators before (left) and after (right) the $ xy $ corrections, in data (markers) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
The $ \phi $ distribution of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators before (left) and after (right) the $ xy $ corrections, in data (markers) and MC simulations (dashed) after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Data-to-simulation comparisons of DEEPMET $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (upper left), recoil $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left), and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) after the quantile correction. The underflow (overflow) contents are included in the first (last) bin. The gray band represents the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 8.4.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
Data-to-simulation comparisons of DEEPMET $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (upper left), recoil $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left), and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) after the quantile correction. The underflow (overflow) contents are included in the first (last) bin. The gray band represents the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 8.4.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
Data-to-simulation comparisons of DEEPMET $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (upper left), recoil $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left), and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) after the quantile correction. The underflow (overflow) contents are included in the first (last) bin. The gray band represents the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 8.4.

png pdf
Figure 11-c:
Data-to-simulation comparisons of DEEPMET $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (upper left), recoil $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left), and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) after the quantile correction. The underflow (overflow) contents are included in the first (last) bin. The gray band represents the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 8.4.

png pdf
Figure 11-d:
Data-to-simulation comparisons of DEEPMET $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (upper left), recoil $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left), and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) after the quantile correction. The underflow (overflow) contents are included in the first (last) bin. The gray band represents the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 8.4.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Response (upper) and response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 12-a:
Response (upper) and response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 12-b:
Response (upper) and response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.

png pdf
Figure 12-c:
Response (upper) and response-corrected resolutions of $ u_{\parallel} $ (lower left) and $ u_{\perp} $ (lower right) of different $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators in data after the $ \mathrm{Z}\to\mu\mu $ selections.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Overview of the simulated event samples used for performance studies.

png pdf
Table 2:
Higher half width at half maximum in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ and $ m_\mathrm{T} $ in data after the $ \mathrm{W}\to\mu\nu $ selections.
Summary
This paper presents a new $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimator, DEEPMET, which is based on a deep neural network. The DEEPMET algorithm utilizes each individual particle reconstructed by the CMS particle-flow algorithm as input and assigns a weight $ w_i $ and two bias terms, $ b_{i,x} $ and $ b_{i,y} $, to each candidate. The estimated $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ is the negative vector sum of the weighted transverse momenta of all candidates, plus their bias contributions. With 4541 trainable parameters, the training and deployment of DEEPMET is computationally efficient. DEEPMET is trained using Z+jets and $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ samples, but achieves 10-30% better resolution compared with the current PF and PUPPI $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ estimators across multiple physics processes, such as Z+jets, W+jets, Higgs boson production, and processes with dark matter candidates. Another important feature of the DEEPMET algorithm is its high resilience to pileup, improving the physics reach in LHC Run 2 and Run 3, and future High-Luminosity LHC conditions. Specifically for the measurement of the W boson mass, a PV-Agnostic version of DEEPMET is designed to be more robust in $ \mathrm{W} \to \mu\nu $ events where the LPV is not always identified correctly. Events containing $ \mathrm{Z} \to \mu\mu $ decays are used to calibrate $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $, including corrections for asymmetries in detector response, as well as for $ {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\, \text{miss}} $ scale and resolution. Good agreement between data and simulation is found. The DEEPMET estimator demonstrates the potential to improve the precision of SM measurements and to achieve higher sensitivity in beyond the standard model physics searches.
References
1 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
2 ATLAS Collaboration The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider JINST 3 (2008) S08003
3 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
4 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup per particle identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
5 CMS Collaboration Pileup-per-particle identification: optimisation for Run 2 Legacy and beyond CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2021-001, 2021
CDS
6 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in pp data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P02006 CMS-JME-13-003
1411.0511
7 CMS Collaboration Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons JHEP 05 (2014) 104 CMS-HIG-13-004
1401.5041
8 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
9 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
10 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
11 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2 JINST 19 (2024) P11021 CMS-TRG-19-001
2410.17038
12 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
13 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
14 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
15 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
16 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
17 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
18 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
19 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
20 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
21 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
22 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
23 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
24 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG JHEP 07 (2008) 060 0805.4802
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 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
27 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
28 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
29 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
30 J. Alwall, P. Schuster, and N. Toro Simplified models for a first characterization of new physics at the LHC PRD 79 (2009) 075020 0810.3921
31 LHC New Physics Working Group Simplified models for LHC new physics searches JPG 39 (2012) 105005 1105.2838
32 CMS Collaboration Search for supersymmetry in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum JHEP 10 (2019) 244 CMS-SUS-19-006
1908.04722
33 CMS Collaboration Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in final states containing hadronic decays of WW, WZ, or WH and missing transverse momentum PLB 842 (2023) 137460 CMS-SUS-21-002
2205.09597
34 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
35 S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy Batch normalization: accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift 1502.03167
36 F. Chollet et al. Keras link
37 M. Abadi et al. TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning 1605.08695
38 I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter Decoupled weight decay regularization 1711.05101
39 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the transverse momentum spectra of weak vector bosons produced in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV JHEP 02 (2017) 096 CMS-SMP-14-012
1606.05864
40 CMS Collaboration High-precision measurement of the W boson mass with the CMS experiment at the LHC Submitted to Nature, 2024 CMS-SMP-23-002
2412.13872
41 CMS Collaboration CMS physics: Technical design report volume 1: Detector performance and software CMS Technical Design Report CERN-LHCC-2006-001, CMS-TDR-8-1, 2006
CDS
42 CMS Collaboration CMSSW on Github http://cms-sw.github.io/
43 CMS Collaboration Portable acceleration of CMS computing workflows with coprocessors as a service Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 17 CMS-MLG-23-001
2402.15366
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN