CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-B2G-19-002
Search for heavy resonances decaying to WW, WZ, or WH boson pairs in the lepton plus merged jet final state at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Abstract: A search for new heavy resonances decaying to pairs of bosons (WW, WZ, or WH) is presented. The analysis uses data from proton-proton collisions collected by the CMS detector from 2016 to 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. One of the bosons is required to be a W boson decaying to an electron or muon and a neutrino, while the other boson is required to be reconstructed as a single massive jet with substructure compatible with a quark pair from a W or Z boson decay, or a bottom quark pair from a Higgs boson decay. The search is performed in the resonance mass range between 1.0 and 4.5 TeV, and includes a specific search for resonances produced via vector boson fusion. The signal is extracted using a two-dimensional maximum likelihood fit to the jet mass and the diboson invariant mass distributions. No significant excess is observed above the estimated background. Model-independent upper limits on the production cross section of spin-0, spin-1, or spin-2 heavy resonances are derived as a function of the resonance mass, and are interpreted in the context of bulk radion, heavy vector triplet, and bulk graviton models.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Feynman diagrams for three of the processes studied in this note: (left) ggF produced spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{W}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} ^{\prime}} $; (center) DY produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{H}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{b} {}\mathrm{\bar{b}}}} $; (right) VBF produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{Z}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}}}$.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Feynman diagrams for three of the processes studied in this note: (left) ggF produced spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{W}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} ^{\prime}} $; (center) DY produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{H}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{b} {}\mathrm{\bar{b}}}} $; (right) VBF produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{Z}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}}}$.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Feynman diagrams for three of the processes studied in this note: (left) ggF produced spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{W}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} ^{\prime}} $; (center) DY produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{H}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{b} {}\mathrm{\bar{b}}}} $; (right) VBF produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{Z}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}}}$.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Feynman diagrams for three of the processes studied in this note: (left) ggF produced spin-2 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{W}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}} ^{\prime}} $; (center) DY produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{H}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{b} {}\mathrm{\bar{b}}}} $; (right) VBF produced charged spin-1 resonance decaying to ${{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{Z}} \,\to \,\ell \nu {\mathrm{q} \mathrm{\bar{q}}}}$.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distributions of the soft-drop jet mass ${m_\text {jet}}$ (top left), mass-decorrelated $N$-subjettiness ratio ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ (top right), double-b tagger (bottom left), and difference in rapidity ${{| \Delta y |}}$ between the reconstructed bosons, for data and simulated events in the top-enriched control region. No event categorization is applied. The events with $ {\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}} > $ 0.80 are not shown in distributions other than ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ itself. The vertical bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties of the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distributions of the soft-drop jet mass ${m_\text {jet}}$ (top left), mass-decorrelated $N$-subjettiness ratio ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ (top right), double-b tagger (bottom left), and difference in rapidity ${{| \Delta y |}}$ between the reconstructed bosons, for data and simulated events in the top-enriched control region. No event categorization is applied. The events with $ {\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}} > $ 0.80 are not shown in distributions other than ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ itself. The vertical bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties of the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distributions of the soft-drop jet mass ${m_\text {jet}}$ (top left), mass-decorrelated $N$-subjettiness ratio ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ (top right), double-b tagger (bottom left), and difference in rapidity ${{| \Delta y |}}$ between the reconstructed bosons, for data and simulated events in the top-enriched control region. No event categorization is applied. The events with $ {\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}} > $ 0.80 are not shown in distributions other than ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ itself. The vertical bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties of the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Distributions of the soft-drop jet mass ${m_\text {jet}}$ (top left), mass-decorrelated $N$-subjettiness ratio ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ (top right), double-b tagger (bottom left), and difference in rapidity ${{| \Delta y |}}$ between the reconstructed bosons, for data and simulated events in the top-enriched control region. No event categorization is applied. The events with $ {\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}} > $ 0.80 are not shown in distributions other than ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ itself. The vertical bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties of the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Distributions of the soft-drop jet mass ${m_\text {jet}}$ (top left), mass-decorrelated $N$-subjettiness ratio ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ (top right), double-b tagger (bottom left), and difference in rapidity ${{| \Delta y |}}$ between the reconstructed bosons, for data and simulated events in the top-enriched control region. No event categorization is applied. The events with $ {\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}} > $ 0.80 are not shown in distributions other than ${\tau _{21}^\text {DDT}}$ itself. The vertical bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties of the data.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-e:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 3-f:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_\text {jet}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-e:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 4-f:
Comparison between the fit result and data distributions of ${m_{{\mathrm{W} \mathrm{V}}}}$ in the six muon-LDy categories. The statistical uncertainties of the data are shown as vertical bars. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the fit result.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new spin-2 resonance produced via gluon-gluon fusion (left) or vector boson fusion (right) and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a spin-2 bulk graviton with $ {\tilde{k}} = $ 0.5. Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new spin-2 resonance produced via gluon-gluon fusion (left) or vector boson fusion (right) and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a spin-2 bulk graviton with $ {\tilde{k}} = $ 0.5. Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new spin-2 resonance produced via gluon-gluon fusion (left) or vector boson fusion (right) and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a spin-2 bulk graviton with $ {\tilde{k}} = $ 0.5. Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new spin-0 resonance produced via gluon-gluon fusion (left) or vector boson fusion (right) and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a spin-0 bulk radion with $\Lambda _{R} = $ 3 TeV and $kl=$ 35. Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new spin-0 resonance produced via gluon-gluon fusion (left) or vector boson fusion (right) and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a spin-0 bulk radion with $\Lambda _{R} = $ 3 TeV and $kl=$ 35. Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new spin-0 resonance produced via gluon-gluon fusion (left) or vector boson fusion (right) and decaying to WW, as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a spin-0 bulk radion with $\Lambda _{R} = $ 3 TeV and $kl=$ 35. Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new neutral spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (top left) or vector boson fusion (top right) and decaying to WW, for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (center left) or vector boson fusion (center right) and decaying to WZ, and for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WH (bottom), as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a W' or Z' from HVT model B (for DY) or HVT model C with $ {c_\text {H}} =$ 3 (for VBF). Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new neutral spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (top left) or vector boson fusion (top right) and decaying to WW, for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (center left) or vector boson fusion (center right) and decaying to WZ, and for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WH (bottom), as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a W' or Z' from HVT model B (for DY) or HVT model C with $ {c_\text {H}} =$ 3 (for VBF). Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new neutral spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (top left) or vector boson fusion (top right) and decaying to WW, for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (center left) or vector boson fusion (center right) and decaying to WZ, and for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WH (bottom), as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a W' or Z' from HVT model B (for DY) or HVT model C with $ {c_\text {H}} =$ 3 (for VBF). Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new neutral spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (top left) or vector boson fusion (top right) and decaying to WW, for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (center left) or vector boson fusion (center right) and decaying to WZ, and for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WH (bottom), as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a W' or Z' from HVT model B (for DY) or HVT model C with $ {c_\text {H}} =$ 3 (for VBF). Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 7-d:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new neutral spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (top left) or vector boson fusion (top right) and decaying to WW, for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (center left) or vector boson fusion (center right) and decaying to WZ, and for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WH (bottom), as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a W' or Z' from HVT model B (for DY) or HVT model C with $ {c_\text {H}} =$ 3 (for VBF). Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.

png pdf
Figure 7-e:
Exclusion limits on the product of the production cross section and the branching fraction for a new neutral spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (top left) or vector boson fusion (top right) and decaying to WW, for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan (center left) or vector boson fusion (center right) and decaying to WZ, and for a new charged spin-1 resonance produced via Drell-Yan and decaying to WH (bottom), as a function of the resonance mass hypothesis, compared with the predicted cross sections for a W' or Z' from HVT model B (for DY) or HVT model C with $ {c_\text {H}} =$ 3 (for VBF). Signal cross section uncertainties are shown as red cross-hatched bands.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Summary of the systematic uncertainties considered in the 2D fit, the quantities they affect, and their magnitude, when applicable. When ranges are given, the magnitude of the uncertainty depends on the signal model or mass.
Summary
A search for new heavy resonances with mass larger than 1 TeV and decaying to WW, WZ, or WH boson pairs that decay semi-leptonically is performed using pp collision events containing one high-${p_{\mathrm{T}}}$ muon or electron, large missing transverse momentum, and a massive large-radius jet. The signal extraction strategy is structured around a two-dimensional maximum-likelihood fit to the distributions of the diboson reconstructed mass and the soft-drop jet mass. The sensitivity to different final states and production mechanisms is enhanced by the use of event categories that exploit the mass-decorrelated $N$-subjettiness ratio, the double-b tagger, the presence of a pair of forward jets compatible with vector boson fusion production, and the difference in rapidity between the reconstructed bosons. No significant excess is found, and the results are interpreted in terms of upper limits on the production cross section of new resonances. The excluded cross section values are compared to expectations from theoretical calculations.
References
1 S. L. Glashow Partial symmetries of weak interactions NP 22 (1961) 579
2 A. Salam and J. C. Ward Electromagnetic and weak interactions PL13 (1964) 168
3 S. Weinberg A model of leptons PRL 19 (1967) 1264
4 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
5 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
6 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
7 L. Randall and R. Sundrum A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension PRL 83 (1999) 3370 hep-ph/9905221
8 L. Randall and R. Sundrum An alternative to compactification PRL 83 (1999) 4690 hep-th/9906064
9 D. Pappadopulo, A. Thamm, R. Torre, and A. Wulzer Heavy vector triplets: Bridging theory and data JHEP 09 (2014) 060 1402.4431
10 B. Bellazzini, C. CsĂ ki, and J. Serra Composite Higgses EPJC 74 (2014) 2766 1401.2457
11 R. Contino, D. Marzocca, D. Pappadopulo, and R. Rattazzi On the effect of resonances in composite Higgs phenomenology JHEP 10 (2011) 081 1109.1570
12 D. Marzocca, M. Serone, and J. Shu General composite Higgs models JHEP 08 (2012) 013 1205.0770
13 D. Greco and D. Liu Hunting composite vector resonances at the LHC: naturalness facing data JHEP 12 (2014) 126 1410.2883
14 K. Lane and L. Pritchett The light composite Higgs boson in strong extended technicolor JHEP 06 (2017) 140 1604.07085
15 M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith Little Higgs review Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 229 hep-ph/0502182
16 N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson The littlest Higgs JHEP 07 (2002) 034 hep-ph/0206021
17 ATLAS Collaboration Search for production of WW/WZ resonances decaying to a lepton, neutrino and jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 75 (2015) 209 1503.04677
18 ATLAS Collaboration Searches for heavy diboson resonances in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 09 (2016) 173 1606.04833
19 ATLAS Collaboration Search for WW/WZ resonance production in $ \ell{\nu}{\mathrm{q}}{\mathrm{q}} $ final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2018) 042 1710.07235
20 CMS Collaboration Search for massive resonances decaying into pairs of boosted bosons in semi-leptonic final states at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2014) 174 CMS-EXO-13-009
1405.3447
21 CMS Collaboration Search for massive resonances decaying into WW, WZ or ZZ bosons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2017) 162 CMS-B2G-16-004
1612.09159
22 CMS Collaboration Search for a heavy resonance decaying to a pair of vector bosons in the lepton plus merged jet final state at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 05 (2018) 088 CMS-B2G-16-029
1802.09407
23 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
24 ATLAS Collaboration Search for a new resonance decaying to a W or Z boson and a Higgs boson in the $ \ell\ell / \ell {\nu} / {\nu\nu} + \mathrm{b\bar{b}} $ final states with the ATLAS detector EPJC 75 (2015) 263 1503.08089
25 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new resonances decaying to a W or Z boson and a Higgs boson in the $ \ell^+ \ell^- \mathrm{b\bar{b}} $, $ \ell {\nu}\mathrm{b\bar{b}} $, and $ {\nu\bar{\nu}} \mathrm{b\bar{b}} $ channels with pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 765 (2017) 32 1607.05621
26 ATLAS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into a W or Z boson and a Higgs boson in final states with leptons and b-jets in 36 fb$ ^{-1} $ of $ \sqrt s = $ 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2018) 174 1712.06518
27 CMS Collaboration Search for massive $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{H} $ resonances decaying into the $ \ell \nu\mathrm{b\bar{b}} $ final state at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV EPJC 76 (2016) 237 CMS-EXO-14-010
1601.06431
28 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into a vector boson and a Higgs boson in final states with charged leptons, neutrinos, and $ \mathrm{q}b $ quarks PLB 768 (2017) 137 CMS-B2G-16-003
1610.08066
29 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy resonances decaying into a vector boson and a Higgs boson in final states with charged leptons, neutrinos and b quarks at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2018) 172 CMS-B2G-17-004
1807.02826
30 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
31 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the cms detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
32 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
33 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
34 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
35 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
36 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup Per Particle Identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
37 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
38 W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise Modulus stabilization with bulk fields PRL 83 (1999) 4922 hep-ph/9907447
39 C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall, and J. Terning Cosmology of brane models with radion stabilization PRD 62 (2000) 045015 hep-ph/9911406
40 C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser, and G. D. Kribs Radion dynamics and electroweak physics PRD 63 (2001) 065002 hep-th/0008151
41 K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni Warped gravitons at the LHC and beyond PRD 76 (2007) 036006 hep-ph/0701186
42 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
43 O. Antipin, D. Atwood, and A. Soni Search for RS gravitons via $ \mathrm{W}_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{W}_\mathrm{L} $ decays PLB 666 (2008) 155 0711.3175
44 A. Oliveira Gravity particles from warped extra dimensions, predictions for LHC 1404.0102
45 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
46 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
47 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
48 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
49 S. Alioli, S.-O. Moch, and P. Uwer Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering JHEP 01 (2012) 137 1110.5251
50 M. Czakon and A. Mitov Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders CPC 185 (2014) 2930 1112.5675
51 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
52 E. Re Single-top Wqt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
53 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MCatNLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
54 P. Nason and G. Zanderighi $ \mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^- $ , WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG-BOX-V2 EPJC 74 (2014) 2702 1311.1365
55 T. Sjostrand et al. An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
56 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
57 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
58 CMS Collaboration Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021 CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
59 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
60 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
61 CMS Collaboration Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P02027 CMS-MUO-17-001
1912.03516
62 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC Submitted to \it JINST CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
63 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
64 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
65 M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam Towards an understanding of jet substructure JHEP 09 (2013) 029 1307.0007
66 J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam Jet substructure as a new Higgs search channel at the LHC PRL 100 (2008) 242001 0802.2470
67 A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler Soft drop JHEP 05 (2014) 146 1402.2657
68 Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber Better jet clustering algorithms JHEP 08 (1997) 001 hep-ph/9707323
69 M. Wobisch and T. Wengler Hadronization corrections to jet cross-sections in deep inelastic scattering in Proceedings of the Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics, Hamburg, Germany, p. 270 1998 hep-ph/9907280
70 J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg Identifying boosted objects with $ N $-subjettiness JHEP 03 (2011) 015 1011.2268
71 J. Dolen et al. Thinking outside the ROCs: Designing decorrelated taggers (DDT) for jet substructure JHEP 05 (2016) 156 1603.00027
72 M. J. Oreglia PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1980SLAC Report SLAC-R-236
73 J. Gaiser PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1982SLAC Report SLAC-R-255
74 M. Cacciari et al. The $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ cross-section at 1.8 TeV and 1.96$ TeV: $ A study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence JHEP 04 (2004) 068 hep-ph/0303085
75 S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders JHEP 07 (2003) 028 hep-ph/0306211
76 S. Baker and R. D. Cousins Clarification of the use of chi square and likelihood functions in fits to histograms NIM221 (1984) 437
77 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
78 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
79 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CLs technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN