CMS-SMP-20-016

CMS-SMP-20-016 ; CERN-EP-2021-095
Measurement of the electroweak production of Z $\gamma$ and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings
CMS Collaboration
21 June 2021
Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 072001
Abstract: The first observation of the electroweak (EW) production of a Z boson, a photon, and two forward jets (Z $\gamma$ jj) in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is presented. A data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb $^{-1}$ , collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016-2018 is used. The measured fiducial cross section for EW Z $\gamma$ jj is $\sigma_{\mathrm{EW}}=$ 5.21 $\pm$ 0.52 (stat) $\pm$ 0.56 (syst) fb $=$ 5.21 $\pm$ 0.76 fb. Single-differential cross sections in photon, leading lepton, and leading jet transverse momenta, and double-differential cross sections in $m_{\mathrm{jj}}$ and $\|{\Delta\eta_{\mathrm{jj}}}\|$ are also measured. Exclusion limits on anomalous quartic gauge couplings are derived at 95% confidence level in terms of the effective field theory operators M $_{0}$ to M $_{5}$ , M $_{7}$ , T $_{0}$ to T $_{2}$ , and T $_{5}$ to T $_{9}$ .
Links: e-print arXiv:2106.11082 [hep-ex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ;

Figures & Tables	Summary	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. With the exception of the upper right one, the diagrams involve only EW vertices: VBS via W boson (upper left), VBS with QGC (upper center), vector boson fusion with TGCs (lower left), bremsstrahlung (lower center), multiperipheral (lower right), whereas the diagram (upper right) represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Representative Feynman diagram for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagram involves VBS via W bosons.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Representative Feynman diagram for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagram involves VBS with a QGC.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: Representative Feynman diagram for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-d: Representative Feynman diagram for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagram involves vector boson fusion with a TGC.
png pdf	Figure 1-e: Representative Feynman diagram for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagram involves bremsstrahlung vertices.
png pdf	Figure 1-f: Representative Feynman diagram for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagram involves multiperipheral vertices.
png pdf	Figure 2: The pre-fit $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ distributions for the dilepton+ $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ events are shown for the dielectron (left) and the dimuon (right) categories with data collected from 2016 to 2018. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: The pre-fit $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ distributions for the dilepton+ $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ events are shown for the dielectron category with data collected from 2016 to 2018. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: The pre-fit $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ distributions for the dilepton+ $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ events are shown for the dimuon category with data collected from 2016 to 2018. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation.
png pdf	Figure 3: The pre-fit $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ distributions for the dilepton+ $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ events are shown for the dielectron (left) and the dimuon (right) categories with data collected from 2016 to 2018. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: The pre-fit $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ distributions for the dilepton+ $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ events are shown for the dielectron category with data collected from 2016 to 2018. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: The pre-fit $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ distributions for the dilepton+ $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ events are shown for the dimuon category with data collected from 2016 to 2018. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contributions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation.
png pdf	Figure 4: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) for the $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories, as functions of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ of [2.5, 4.5], [4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron for the $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories, as functions of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ of [2.5, 4.5], [4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dimuon for the $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories, as functions of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ of [2.5, 4.5], [4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 5: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) for the $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories, as functions of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ of [2.5, 4.5], [4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron for the $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories, as functions of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ of [2.5, 4.5], [4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dimuon for the $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories, as functions of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ of [2.5, 4.5], [4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) for the $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ of [150, 300], [300, 400], and [400,500]. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron for the $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ of [150, 300], [300, 400], and [400,500]. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dimuon for the $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ of [150, 300], [300, 400], and [400,500]. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) for the $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ of [150, 300], [300, 400], and [400,500]. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron for the $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ of [150, 300], [300, 400], and [400,500]. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dimuon for the $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ of [150, 300], [300, 400], and [400,500]. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the total uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 8: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ , leading jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ , leading photon ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ , and $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ - ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of leading jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 8-c: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of leading photon ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 8-d: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ - ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 9: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ , leading photon ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ , leading jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ , and $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ - ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading photon ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 9-c: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 9-d: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ - ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the red bands represent the total theoretical uncertainties from the MG5 simulation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 10: The $m_{\mathrm{Z} \gamma}$ distribution for events satisfying the aQGC region selection, which is used to set constraints on the anomalous coupling parameters. The bins of $m_{\mathrm{Z} \gamma}$ are [150, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 2000] GeV, where the last bin includes overflow events. The red line represents a nonzero $F_{\mathrm {T8}}$ value and the blue line represents a nonzero $F_{\mathrm {T9}}$ value, which would significantly enhance the yields at high $m_{\mathrm{Z} \gamma}$ . The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainties in the SM predictions.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Summary of the five sets of event selection criteria used to define events in the fiducial cross section measurement region, control region, EW signal extraction region, and the region used to search for aQGC contributions.
png pdf	Table 2: The impact of the systematic uncertainties on the EW signal strength measurement.
png pdf	Table 3: Post-fit yields of predicted signal and background with total uncertainties, and observed event counts after the selection in the EW signal region. The $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ and $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ columns represent events with photons in the ECAL barrel and endcaps, respectively.
png pdf	Table 4: The signal strengths and differential cross sections from SM expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma}$ , ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}$ , and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\ell _1}$ observables for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Table 5: The signal strengths and differential cross sections from SM expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of 2D $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ - ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ observables for EW Z $\gamma$ jj. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Table 6: The signal strengths and differential cross sections from SM expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\gamma}$ , ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {j}_1}$ , and ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\ell _1}$ observables for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Table 7: The signal strengths and differential cross sections from SM expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of 2D $m_{\mathrm {jj}}$ - ${\| \Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}} \|}$ observables for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Table 8: The expected and observed limits on the aQGC parameters at 95% confidence level. The last column presents the scattering energy values for which the amplitude would violate unitarity for the observed value of the aQGC parameter. All coupling parameter limits are set in $TeV ^{-4}$ , whereas the unitarity bounds are in TeV.

Summary

This paper presents the first observation of the electroweak (EW) production of a Z boson, a photon, and two jets (Z

$\gamma$ jj) in

$\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded with the CMS detector in 2016-2018 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb

$^{-1}$ . Events were selected by requiring two opposite-sign leptons with the same flavor from the decay of a Z boson, one identified photon, and two jets that have a large separation in pseudorapidity and a large dijet mass. The measured cross section in the fiducial volume defined in Table 1 for EW Z

$\gamma$ jj production is 5.21

$\pm$ 0.52 (stat)

$\pm$ 0.56 (syst) fb

$=$ 5.21

$\pm$ 0.76 fb, and the fiducial cross section of EW and QCD-induced production is 14.7

$\pm$ 0.80 (stat)

$\pm$ 1.26 (syst) fb

$=$ 14.7

$\pm$ 1.53 fb. Both the observed and expected signal significances are well in excess of 5 standard deviations. Differential cross sections for EW and EW+QCD are measured for several observables and compared to standard model predictions computed at leading order. Within the uncertainties, the measurements agree with the predictions. Constraints are set on the effective field theory dimension-8 operators M

$_{0}$ to M

$_{5}$ , M

$_{7}$ , T

$_{0}$ to T

$_{2}$ , and T

$_{5}$ to T

$_{9}$ , giving rise to anomalous quartic gauge couplings. These constraints are either competitive with or more stringent than those previously obtained.

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	ATLAS, CMS Collaboration	Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV	JHEP 08 (2016) 045	1606.02266
5	CMS Collaboration	Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	EPJC 79 (2019) 421	CMS-HIG-17-031 1809.10733
6	O. J. P. \'Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi	${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow$ jje $^\pm \mu^\pm \nu\nu$ and jje $^\pm\mu^\mp\nu\nu$ at $\mathcal{O}$ ( $\alpha^6_{\rm em}$ ) and $\mathcal{O}$ ( $\alpha_{\rm em}^4 \alpha_{\rm s}^2$ ) for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC	PRD 74 (2006) 073005	hep-ph/0606118
7	CMS Collaboration	Search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in WW and WZ production in lepton + jet events in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 12 (2019) 062	CMS-SMP-18-008 1907.08354
8	ATLAS Collaboration	Evidence for electroweak production of two jets in association with a $\mathrm{Z} \gamma$ pair in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 803 (2020) 135341	1910.09503
9	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the cross section for electroweak production of a Z boson, a photon and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic couplings	JHEP 06 (2020) 076	CMS-SMP-18-007 2002.09902
10	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
11	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
12	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
13	T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi	$\text{W}^{+}\text{W}^{-}$ , $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}$ and $\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}$ production in the POWHEG BOX	JHEP 11 (2011) 078	1107.5051
14	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
15	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
16	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
17	T. Sjostrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	CPC 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
18	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
19	O. Mattelaer	On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy	EPJC 76 (2016) 674	1607.00763
20	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
21	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 663	1706.00428
22	P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo	Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune	EPJC 74 (2014) 3024	1404.5630
23	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
24	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4-a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
25	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4 developments and applications	IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270
26	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
27	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- ${k_{\mathrm{T}}}$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
28	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
29	CMS Collaboration	Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 16 (2021) P05014	CMS-EGM-17-001 2012.06888
30	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
31	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
32	M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam	Pileup subtraction using jet areas	PLB 659 (2008) 119	0707.1378
33	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the inclusive $\mathrm{W}$ and $\mathrm{Z}$ production cross sections in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV with the CMS experiment	JHEP 10 (2011) 132	CMS-EWK-10-005 1107.4789
34	CMS Collaboration	Energy calibration and resolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collision at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	JINST 8 (2013) P09009	CMS-EGM-11-001 1306.2016
35	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
36	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
37	CMS Collaboration	Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data	JINST 15 (2020) P09018	CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503
38	D. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld	Probing color singlet exchange in Z+2-jet events at the CERN LHC	PRD 54 (1996) 6680	hep-ph/9605444
39	N. Kidonakis	Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a $W^{-}$ or $H^{-}$	PRD 82 (2010) 054018	1005.4451
40	J. Butterworth et al.	PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II	JPG 43 (2016) 023001	1510.03865
41	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JHEP 07 (2018) 161	CMS-FSQ-15-005 1802.02613
42	CMS Collaboration	Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS	Submitted to EPJC	CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927
43	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
44	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
45	L. Demortier	P values and nuisance parameters	in Statistical issues for LHC physics. Proceedings, Workshop, PHYSTAT-LHC, Geneva, 2008
46	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727
47	P. C. Hansen	Computational aspects: Regularization methods	in Discrete inverse problems: insight and algorithms SIAM
48	S. S. Wilks	The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses	Ann. Math. Statist 9 (1938) 60
49	CMS Collaboration	Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV	EPJC 75 (2015) 212	CMS-HIG-14-009 1412.8662
50	E. d. S. Almeida, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia	Unitarity constraints on anomalous quartic couplings	PRD 101 (2020) 113003	2004.05174