Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/jax.js
CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-18-004 ; CERN-EP-2019-028
Measurement of tˉt normalised multi-differential cross sections in pp collisions at s= 13 TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions
Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 658
Abstract: Normalised multi-differential cross sections for top quark pair (tˉt) production are measured in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV using events containing two oppositely charged leptons. The analysed data were recorded with the CMS detector in 2016 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb1. The double-differential tˉt cross section is measured as a function of the kinematic properties of the top quark and of the tˉt system at parton level in the full phase space. A triple-differential measurement is performed as a function of the invariant mass and rapidity of the tˉt system and the multiplicity of additional jets at particle level. The data are compared to predictions of Monte Carlo event generators that complement next-to-leading-order (NLO) quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations with parton showers. Together with a fixed-order NLO QCD calculation, the triple-differential measurement is used to extract values of the strong coupling strength αS and the top quark pole mass (mpolet) using several sets of parton distribution functions (PDFs). Furthermore, a simultaneous fit of the PDFs, αS, and mpolet is performed at NLO, demonstrating that the new data have significant impact on the gluon PDF, and at the same time allow an accurate determination of αS and mpolet.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Distributions of pT(t) (upper left), y(t) (upper right), pT(t¯t) (middle left), y(t¯t) (middle right), M(t¯t) (lower left), and Njet (lower right) in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel in each plot shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Distribution of pT(t) in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Distribution of y(t) in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Distribution of pT(t¯t) in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
Distribution of y(t¯t) in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-e:
Distribution of M(t¯t) in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-f:
Distribution of Njet in selected events after the kinematic reconstruction, at detector level. The experimental data with the vertical bars corresponding to their statistical uncertainties are plotted together with distributions of simulated signal and different background processes. The hatched regions correspond to the estimated shape uncertainties in the signal and backgrounds (as detailed in Section 7). The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data event yields to those expected in the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distributions of y(t¯t) (left) and M(t¯t) (right) in selected events after the loose kinematic reconstruction. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 1.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distribution of y(t¯t) in selected events after the loose kinematic reconstruction. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 1.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distribution of M(t¯t) in selected events after the loose kinematic reconstruction. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 1.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Comparison of the measured [ y(t), pT(t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using POWHEG + PYTHIA (`POW+PYT'), POWHEG + HERWIG++ (`POW+HER'), and MG5\_aMC@NLO + PYTHIA (`MG5+PYT') event generators.} The inner vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainties and the full bars include also the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. For each MC model, values of χ2 which take into account the bin-to-bin correlations and dof for the comparison with the data are reported. The hatched regions correspond to the theoretical uncertainties in POWHEG + PYTHIA (see Section 7). In the lower panel, the ratios of the data and other simulations to the `POW+PYT' predictions are shown.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Comparison of the measured [ M(t¯t), y(t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 5:
Comparison of the measured [ M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 6:
Comparison of the measured [ M(t¯t), Δη(t,¯t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 7:
Comparison of the measured [ M(t¯t), Δϕ(t,¯t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 8:
Comparison of the measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t¯t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 9:
Comparison of the measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 10:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 11:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections {to the theoretical predictions calculated using MC event generators} (further details can be found in the Fig. 3 caption).

png pdf
Figure 12:
Assessment of compatibility of various MC predictions with the data. The plot show the p-values of χ2-tests between data and predictions. Only the data uncertainties are taken into account in the χ2-tests while uncertainties on the theoretical calculations are ignored. Points with p 0.001 are shown at p= 0.001.

png pdf
Figure 13:
The theoretical uncertainties for [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] (upper) and [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] (lower) cross sections, arising from PDF, αS(mZ), and mpolet variations, as well as the total theoretical uncertainties, with their bin-averaged values shown in brackets. The bins are the same as in Figs. 10 and 11.

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
The theoretical uncertainties for [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections, arising from PDF, αS(mZ), and mpolet variations, as well as the total theoretical uncertainties, with their bin-averaged values shown in brackets. The bins are the same as in Figs. 10 and 11.

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
The theoretical uncertainties for [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections, arising from PDF, αS(mZ), and mpolet variations, as well as the total theoretical uncertainties, with their bin-averaged values shown in brackets. The bins are the same as in Figs. 10 and 11.

png pdf
Figure 14:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections to NLO predictions obtained using different PDF sets (further details can be found in Fig. 3). For each theoretical prediction, values of χ2 and dof for the comparison to the data are reported, while additional χ2 values that include PDF uncertainties are shown in parentheses.

png pdf
Figure 15:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections to NLO predictions obtained using different αS(mZ) values (further details can be found in Fig. 3). For each theoretical prediction, values of χ2 and dof for the comparison to the data are reported.

png pdf
Figure 16:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections to NLO predictions obtained using different mpolet values (further details can be found in Fig. 3). For each theoretical prediction, values of χ2 and dof for the comparison to the data are reported.

png pdf
Figure 17:
The αS(mZ) (left) and mpolet (right) extraction at NLO from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using different PDF sets. The extracted αS(mZ) and mpolet values are reported for each PDF set, and the estimated minimum χ2 value is shown in brackets. Further details are given in the text.

png pdf
Figure 17-a:
The αS(mZ) extraction at NLO from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using different PDF sets. The extracted αS(mZ) and mpolet values are reported for each PDF set, and the estimated minimum χ2 value is shown in brackets. Further details are given in the text.

png pdf
Figure 17-b:
The mpolet extraction at NLO from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using different PDF sets. The extracted αS(mZ) and mpolet values are reported for each PDF set, and the estimated minimum χ2 value is shown in brackets. Further details are given in the text.

png pdf
Figure 18:
The αS(mZ) (left) and mpolet (right) values extracted at NLO using different PDFs. The contributions to the total uncertainty arising from the data, PDF, scale, and αS(mZ) uncertainties are shown separately. The world average values αS(mZ)= 0.1181 ± 0.0011 and mpolet= 173.1 ± 0.9 GeV from Ref. [94] are shown for reference.

png pdf
Figure 18-a:
The αS(mZ) values extracted at NLO using different PDFs. The contributions to the total uncertainty arising from the data, PDF, scale, and αS(mZ) uncertainties are shown separately. The world average value αS(mZ)= 0.1181 ± 0.0011 from Ref. [94] is shown for reference.

png pdf
Figure 18-b:
The mpolet values extracted at NLO using different PDFs. The contributions to the total uncertainty arising from the data, PDF, scale, and αS(mZ) uncertainties are shown separately. The world average value mpolet= 173.1 ± 0.9 GeV from Ref. [94] is shown for reference.

png pdf
Figure 19:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections to the NLO predictions using the parameter values from the simultaneous PDF, αS, and mpolet fit (further details can be found in Fig. 3). Values of χ2 and dof are reported.

png pdf
Figure 20:
Comparison of the measured [ y(t), pT(t) ] cross sections to the NLO predictions using the parameter values from the simultaneous PDF, αS and mpolet fit of the [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections, as well as the predictions obtained using the NNPDF3.1 and ABMP16 PDF sets with different values of mpolet (see Fig. 3 for further details). In the lower panel, the ratios of the data and theoretical predictions to the predictions from the fit are shown. For each theoretical prediction, values of χ2 and dof for the comparison to the data are reported.

png pdf
Figure 21:
Δχ2=χ2χ2min as a function of αS(mZ) in the QCD analysis using the HERA DIS data only, or HERA and t¯t data.

png pdf
Figure 22:
The PDFs with their total uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data. The results are normalised to the PDFs obtained using the HERA DIS data only.

png pdf
Figure 22-a:
The xuV(x) PDF with total uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data. The results are normalised to the PDFs obtained using the HERA DIS data only.

png pdf
Figure 22-b:
The xdV(x) PDF with total uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data. The results are normalised to the PDFs obtained using the HERA DIS data only.

png pdf
Figure 22-c:
The xg(x) PDF with total uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data. The results are normalised to the PDFs obtained using the HERA DIS data only.

png pdf
Figure 22-d:
The xΣ(x) PDF with total uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data. The results are normalised to the PDFs obtained using the HERA DIS data only.

png pdf
Figure 23:
The relative total PDF uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data.

png pdf
Figure 23-a:
The relative total xΣ(x) PDF uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data.

png pdf
Figure 23-b:
The relative total PDF uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data.

png pdf
Figure 23-c:
The relative total PDF uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data.

png pdf
Figure 23-d:
The relative total PDF uncertainties in the fit using the HERA DIS data only, and the HERA DIS and t¯t data.

png pdf
Figure 24:
{The extracted values and their correlations for αS and mpolet (upper left), αS and gluon PDF (lower left), and mpolet and gluon PDF (lower, right). The gluon PDF is shown at the scale μ2f= 30 GeV2 for several values of x. For the extracted αS and mpolet values, also shown are the additional uncertainties arising from the dependence on scale variations (see Eq. (8) and Table 2). The correlation coefficients ρ are also displayed. Furthermore, values of αS(mpolet, gluon PDF) extracted using fixed values of mpolet(αS) are displayed as dashed, dotted, or dash-dotted lines. The world average values αS(mZ)= 0.1181 ± 0.0011 and mpolet= 173.1 ± 0.9 GeV from Ref. [94] are shown for reference.}

png pdf
Figure B1:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and CT14 (upper), HERAPDF2.0 (middle), and ABMP16 (lower) PDF sets. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B1-a:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and the CT14 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B1-b:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and the CT14 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B1-c:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and the HERAPDF2.0 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B1-d:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and the HERAPDF2.0 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B1-e:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and the ABMP16 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B1-f:
The αs extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and mpolet settings, and the ABMP16 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and CT14 (upper), HERAPDF2.0 (middle), and ABMP16 (lower) PDF sets. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2-a:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and the CT14 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2-b:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and the CT14 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2-c:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and the HERAPDF2.0 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2-d:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and the HERAPDF2.0 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2-e:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and the ABMP16 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B2-f:
The mpolet extraction from the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections using varied scale and αS(mZ) settings, and the ABMP16 PDF set. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 17.

png pdf
Figure B3:
The αS(mZ) (left) and mpolet (right) values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for Njet (upper), M(t¯t) (middle), and |y(t¯t)| (lower) measurements. For central values outside the displayed mpolet range, no result is shown. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B3-a:
The αS(mZ) values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for the Njet measurement. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B3-b:
The mpolet values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for the Njet measurement. For central values outside the displayed mpolet range, no result is shown. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B3-c:
The αS(mZ) values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for the M(t¯t) measurement. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B3-d:
The mpolet values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for the M(t¯t) measurement. For central values outside the displayed mpolet range, no result is shown. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B3-e:
The αS(mZ) values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for the |y(t¯t)| measurement. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B3-f:
The mpolet values extracted using different single-differential cross sections, for the |y(t¯t)| measurement. For central values outside the displayed mpolet range, no result is shown. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B4:
The αS(mZ) (left) and mpolet (right) values extracted from the triple-differential [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B4-a:
The αS(mZ) values extracted from the triple-differential [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B4-b:
The mpolet values extracted from the triple-differential [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B5:
The αS(mZ) (left) and mpolet (right) values extracted from the triple-differential [ pT(t¯t), M(t¯t), y(t¯t)}] cross sections. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B5-a:
The αS(mZ) values extracted from the triple-differential [ pT(t¯t), M(t¯t), y(t¯t)}] cross sections. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure B5-b:
The mpolet values extracted from the triple-differential [ pT(t¯t), M(t¯t), y(t¯t)}] cross sections. Details can be found in the caption of Fig. 18.

png pdf
Figure C1:
Comparison of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections obtained using different values of mMCt to NLO predictions obtained using different mpolet values (further details can be found in Fig. 3).
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
The χ2 values (taking into account data uncertainties and ignoring theoretical uncertainties) and dof of the measured cross sections with respect {to the predictions of various MC generators.}

png pdf
Table 2:
The individual contributions to the uncertainties for the αS(mZ) and mpolet determination.

png pdf
Table 3:
The global and partial χ2/dof values for all variants of the QCD analysis. The variant of the fit that uses the HERA DIS only is denoted as `Nominal fit'. For the HERA measurements, the energy of the proton beam, Ep, is listed for each data set, with the electron energy being Ee= 27.5 GeV, CC and NC standing for charged and neutral current, respectively. The correlated χ2 and the log-penalty χ2 entries refer to the χ2 contributions from the nuisance parameters and from the logarithmic term, respectively, as described in the text.

png pdf
Table A1:
The measured [ y(t), pT(t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A2:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ y(t), pT(t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.1.

png pdf
Table A3:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ y(t), pT(t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.1.

png pdf
Table A4:
A.3 continued.

png pdf
Table A5:
A.3 continued.

png pdf
Table A6:
The measured [ M(t¯t), y(t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A7:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ M(t¯t), y(t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.6.

png pdf
Table A8:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ M(t¯t), y(t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.6.

png pdf
Table A9:
A.8 continued.

png pdf
Table A10:
A.8 continued.

png pdf
Table A11:
The measured [ M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A12:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.11.

png pdf
Table A13:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.11.

png pdf
Table A14:
A.13 continued.

png pdf
Table A15:
A.13 continued.

png pdf
Table A16:
The measured [ M(t¯t), Δη(t,¯t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A17:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ M(t¯t), Δη(t,¯t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.16.

png pdf
Table A18:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ M(t¯t), Δη(t,¯t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.16.

png pdf
Table A19:
A.18 continued.

png pdf
Table A20:
A.18 continued.

png pdf
Table A21:
The measured [ M(t¯t), Δϕ(t,¯t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A22:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ M(t¯t), Δϕ(t,¯t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.21.

png pdf
Table A23:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ M(t¯t), Δϕ(t,¯t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.21.

png pdf
Table A24:
A.23 continued.

png pdf
Table A25:
A.23 continued.

png pdf
Table A26:
The measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t¯t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A27:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t¯t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.26.

png pdf
Table A28:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t¯t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.26.

png pdf
Table A29:
A.28 continued.

png pdf
Table A30:
A.28 continued.

png pdf
Table A31:
The measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table A32:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.31.

png pdf
Table A33:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ M(t¯t), pT(t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.31.

png pdf
Table A34:
A.33 continued.

png pdf
Table A35:
A.33 continued.

png pdf
Table A36:
The measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties, and NP corrections (see Section 9).

png pdf
Table A37:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.36.

png pdf
Table A38:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ N0,1+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.36.

png pdf
Table A39:
A.38 continued.

png pdf
Table A40:
A.38 continued.

png pdf
Table A41:
The measured [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections, along with their relative statistical and systematic uncertainties, and NP corrections (see Section 9).

png pdf
Table A42:
The correlation matrix of statistical uncertainties for the measured [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. The values are expressed as percentages. For bin indices see A.41.

png pdf
Table A43:
Sources and values of the relative systematic uncertainties in percent of the measured [ N0,1,2+jet, M(t¯t), y(t¯t) ] cross sections. For bin indices see A.41.

png pdf
Table A44:
A.43 continued.

png pdf
Table A45:
A.43 continued.

png pdf
Table A46:
A.43 continued.

png pdf
Table A47:
A.43 continued.
Summary
A measurement was presented of normalised multi-differential tˉt production cross sections in pp collisions at s= 13 TeV, performed using events containing two oppositely charged leptons (electron or muon). The analysed data were recorded in 2016 with the CMS detector at the LHC, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb1. The normalised tˉt cross section is measured in the full phase space as a function of different pairs of kinematic variables that describe either the top quark or the tˉt system. None of the central predictions of the tested Monte Carlo models is able to correctly describe all the distributions. The data exhibit softer transverse momentum pT(t) distributions than given by the theoretical predictions, as was reported in previous single-differential and double-differential tˉt cross section measurements. The effect of the softer pT(t) spectra in the data relative to the predictions is enhanced at larger values of the invariant mass of the tˉt system. {The predicted pT(t) slopes are strongly sensitive to the parton distribution functions (PDFs) and the top quark pole mass mpolet value used in the calculations, and the description of the data can be improved by changing these parameters.

The measured tˉt cross sections as a function of the invariant mass and rapidity of the tˉt system, and the multiplicity of additional jets, have been incorporated into two specific fits of QCD parameters at next-to-leading order, after applying corrections for nonperturbative effects, together with the inclusive deep inelastic scattering data from HERA. When fitting only αS and mpolet to the data, using external PDFs, the two parameters are determined with high accuracy and rather weak correlation between them, however, the extracted αS values depend on the PDF set. In a simultaneous fit of αS, mpolet, and PDFs, the inclusion of the new multi-differential tˉt measurements has a significant impact on the extracted gluon PDF at large values of x, where x is the fraction of the proton momentum carried by a parton, and at the same time allows an accurate determination of αS and mpolet.
References
1 M. Czakon, M. L. Mangano, A. Mitov, and J. Rojo Constraints on the gluon PDF from top quark pair production at hadron colliders JHEP 07 (2013) 167 1303.7215
2 M. Guzzi, K. Lipka, and S. Moch Top-quark pair production at hadron colliders: differential cross section and phenomenological applications with DiffTop JHEP 01 (2015) 082 1406.0386
3 M. Czakon et al. Pinning down the large-x gluon with NNLO top-quark pair differential distributions JHEP 04 (2017) 044 1611.08609
4 V. A. Novikov et al. Charmonium and Gluons: Basic Experimental Facts and Theoretical Introduction PR 41 (1978) 1
5 R. Tarrach The Pole Mass in Perturbative QCD NPB 183 (1981) 384
6 M. C. Smith and S. S. Willenbrock Top quark pole mass PRL 79 (1997) 3825 hep-ph/9612329
7 S. Alioli et al. A new observable to measure the top-quark mass at hadron colliders EPJC 73 (2013) 2438 1303.6415
8 CDF Collaboration First measurement of the tˉt differential cross section dσ/dMtˉt in pˉp collisions at s= 1.96 TeV PRL 102 (2009) 222003 0903.2850
9 D0 Collaboration Measurement of differential tˉt production cross sections in pˉp collisions PRD 90 (2014) 092006 1401.5785
10 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of top quark pair relative differential cross-sections with ATLAS in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV EPJC 73 (2013) 2261 1207.5644
11 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV EPJC 73 (2013) 2339 CMS-TOP-11-013
1211.2220
12 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of normalized differential cross-sections for tˉt production in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector PRD 90 (2014) 072004 1407.0371
13 ATLAS Collaboration Differential top-antitop cross-section measurements as a function of observables constructed from final-state particles using pp collisions at s= 7 TeV in the ATLAS detector JHEP 06 (2015) 100 1502.05923
14 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of top quark pair differential cross-sections in the dilepton channel in pp collisions at s= 7 and 8 TeV with ATLAS PRD 94 (2016) 092003 1607.07281
15 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at s= 8 TeV EPJC 75 (2015) 542 CMS-TOP-12-028
1505.04480
16 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the lepton+jets channel in pp collisions at s= 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector EPJC 76 (2016) 538 1511.04716
17 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross-section of highly boosted top quarks as a function of their transverse momentum in s= 8 TeV proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector PRD 93 (2016) 032009 1510.03818
18 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the tˉt production cross section in the all-jets final state in pp collisions at s= 8 TeV EPJC 76 (2016) 128 CMS-TOP-14-018
1509.06076
19 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the integrated and differential tˉt production cross sections for high-pT top quarks in pp collisions at s= 8 TeV PRD 94 (2016) 072002 CMS-TOP-14-012
1605.00116
20 CMS Collaboration Measurement of double-differential cross sections for top quark pair production in pp collisions at s= 8 TeV and impact on parton distribution functions EPJC 77 (2017) 459 CMS-TOP-14-013
1703.01630
21 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV PRD 95 (2017) 092001 CMS-TOP-16-008
1610.04191
22 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at s= 13 TeV PRD 97 (2018) 112003 CMS-TOP-17-002
1803.08856
23 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of jet activity produced in top-quark events with an electron, a muon and two b-tagged jets in the final state in pp collisions at s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 77 (2017) 220 1610.09978
24 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the eμ channel in pp collisions at s= 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector EPJC 77 (2017) 292 1612.05220
25 CMS Collaboration Measurement of normalized differential t¯t cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at s= 13 TeV JHEP 04 (2018) 060 CMS-TOP-16-007
1708.07638
26 CMS Collaboration Measurements of t¯t differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at s= 13 TeV using events containing two leptons JHEP 02 (2019) 149 CMS-TOP-17-014
1811.06625
27 CMS Collaboration Measurement of t¯t production with additional jet activity, including b quark jets, in the dilepton decay channel using pp collisions at s= 8 TeV EPJC 76 (2016) 379 CMS-TOP-12-041
1510.03072
28 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of jet activity in top quark events using the eμ final state with two b-tagged jets in pp collisions at s= 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 09 (2016) 074 1606.09490
29 D0 Collaboration Determination of the pole and ¯MS masses of the top quark from the tˉt cross section PLB 703 (2011) 422 1104.2887
30 CMS Collaboration Determination of the top-quark pole mass and strong coupling constant from the tˉt production cross section in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV PLB 728 (2014) 496 CMS-TOP-12-022
1307.1907
31 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the tˉt production cross-section using eμ events with b-tagged jets in pp collisions at s= 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 74 (2014) 3109 1406.5375
32 D0 Collaboration Measurement of the inclusive tˉt production cross section in pˉp collisions at s= 1.96 TeV and determination of the top quark pole mass PRD 94 (2016) 092004 1605.06168
33 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the tˉt production cross section in the eμ channel in proton-proton collisions at s= 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2016) 029 CMS-TOP-13-004
1603.02303
34 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the t¯t production cross section, the top quark mass, and the strong coupling constant using dilepton events in pp collisions at s= 13 TeV Submitted to EPJC CMS-TOP-17-001
1812.10505
35 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
36 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
37 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
38 T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual JHEP 05 (2006) 026 hep-ph/0603175
39 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
40 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
41 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
42 NNPDF Collaboration Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties at NNLO and LO NPB 855 (2012) 153 1107.2652
43 Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al. Review of particle physics CPC 40 (2016) 100001
44 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
45 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
46 CMS Collaboration Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA in the modelling of t¯t at s= 8 and 13 TeV CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021 CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
47 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
48 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
49 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
50 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
51 M. Bahr et al. Herwig++ physics and manual EPJC 58 (2008) 639 0803.0883
52 M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok Constraining MPI models using σeff and recent Tevatron and LHC underlying event data JHEP 10 (2013) 113 1307.5015
53 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
54 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
55 N. Kidonakis Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with W or H PRD 82 (2010) 054018 hep-ph/1005.4451
56 Y. Li and F. Petriello Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ PRD 86 (2012) 094034 1208.5967
57 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams Vector boson pair production at the LHC JHEP 07 (2011) 018 1105.0020
58 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
59 S. Dulat et al. New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics PRD 93 (2016) 033006 1506.07443
60 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PRL 117 (2016) 182002 1606.02625
61 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4---a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
62 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
63 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The catchment area of jets JHEP 04 (2008) 005 0802.1188
64 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at s= 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
65 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
66 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
67 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
68 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
69 S. Schmitt TUnfold: an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics JINST 7 (2012) T10003 1205.6201
70 A. N. Tikhonov Solution of incorrectly formulated problems and the regularization method Sov. Math. Dokl. 4 (1963) 1035
71 S. Schmitt Data unfolding methods in high energy physics EPJWeb Conf. 137 (2017) 11008 1611.01927
72 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the Drell-Yan cross section in pp collisions at s= 7 TeV JHEP 10 (2011) 007 CMS-EWK-10-007
1108.0566
73 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in proton-proton collisions at s= 13 TeV PRL 116 (2016) 052002 CMS-TOP-15-003
1510.05302
74 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
75 S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjostrand Effects of color reconnection on tˉt final states at the LHC JHEP 11 (2014) 043 1407.6653
76 J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands String formation beyond leading colour JHEP 08 (2015) 003 1505.01681
77 M. G. Bowler e+e Production of heavy quarks in the string model Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 169
78 C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas Scaling violations in inclusive e+e annihilation spectra PRD 27 (1983) 105
79 M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi Heavy quark correlations in hadron collisions at next-to-leading order NPB 373 (1992) 295
80 S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, and S. Weinzierl NLO QCD corrections to tˉt+jet production at hadron colliders PRL 98 (2007) 262002 hep-ph/0703120
81 G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, and M. Worek Dominant QCD Backgrounds in Higgs Boson Analyses at the LHC: A Study of pp tˉt + 2 jets at Next-To-Leading Order PRL 104 (2010) 162002 1002.4009
82 G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, and M. Worek Hadronic top-quark pair production in association with two jets at Next-to-Leading Order QCD PRD 84 (2011) 114017 1108.2851
83 S. Hoche et al. Next-to-leading order QCD predictions for top-quark pair production with up to three jets EPJC 77 (2017) 145 1607.06934
84 M. Czakon, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov High-precision differential predictions for top-quark pairs at the LHC PRL 116 (2016) 082003 1511.00549
85 M. Czakon, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov Dynamical scales for multi-TeV top-pair production at the LHC JHEP 04 (2017) 071 1606.03350
86 S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, and S. Moch NLO PDFs from the ABMP16 fit EPJC 78 (2018) 477 1803.07537
87 A. Accardi et al. Constraints on large-x parton distributions from new weak boson production and deep-inelastic scattering data PRD 93 (2016) 114017 1602.03154
88 H1, ZEUS Collaboration Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic e±p scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data EPJC 75 (2015) 580 1506.06042
89 P. Jimenez-Delgado and E. Reya Delineating parton distributions and the strong coupling PRD 89 (2014) 074049 1403.1852
90 L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs EPJC 75 (2015) 204 1412.3989
91 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
92 A. Buckley et al. \lhapdf6: parton density access in the LHC precision era EPJC 75 (2015) 132 1412.7420
93 M. Cacciari et al. Updated predictions for the total production cross sections of top and of heavier quark pairs at the Tevatron and at the LHC JHEP 09 (2008) 127 0804.2800
94 Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al. Review of particle physics PRD 98 (2018) 030001
95 Y. Kiyo et al. Top-quark pair production near threshold at LHC EPJC 60 (2009) 375 0812.0919
96 J. H. Kuhn, A. Scharf, and P. Uwer Weak Interactions in Top-Quark Pair Production at Hadron Colliders: An Update PRD 91 (2015) 014020 1305.5773
97 M. Czakon et al. Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW JHEP 10 (2017) 186 1705.04105
98 S. Alekhin et al. HERAFitter EPJC 75 (2015) 304 1410.4412
99 Y. L. Dokshitzer Calculation of the structure functions for deep inelastic scattering and e+e annihilation by perturbation theory in quantum chromodynamics Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977)641
100 V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov Deep inelastic ep scattering in perturbation theory Sov. J. NP 15 (1972)438
101 G. Altarelli and G. Parisi Asymptotic freedom in parton language NPB 126 (1977) 298
102 G. Curci, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio Evolution of parton densities beyond leading order: the nonsinglet case NPB 175 (1980) 27
103 W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio Singlet parton densities beyond leading order PLB 97 (1980) 437
104 S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt The three-loop splitting functions in QCD: the nonsinglet case NPB 688 (2004) 101 hep-ph/0403192
105 A. Vogt, S. Moch, and J. A. M. Vermaseren The three-loop splitting functions in QCD: the singlet case NPB 691 (2004) 129 hep-ph/0404111
106 M. Botje QCDNUM: Fast QCD evolution and convolution CPC 182 (2011) 490 1005.1481
107 R. S. Thorne and R. G. Roberts An ordered analysis of heavy flavor production in deep inelastic scattering PRD 57 (1998) 6871 hep-ph/9709442
108 R. S. Thorne A variable-flavor number scheme for NNLO PRD 73 (2006) 054019 hep-ph/0601245
109 R. S. Thorne Effect of changes of variable flavor number scheme on parton distribution functions and predicted cross sections PRD 86 (2012) 074017 1201.6180
110 V. Bertone et al. aMCfast: automation of fast NLO computations for PDF fits JHEP 08 (2014) 166 1406.7693
111 T. Carli et al. A posteriori inclusion of parton density functions in NLO QCD final-state calculations at hadron colliders: The \applgrid project EPJC 66 (2010) 503 0911.2985
112 A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt Parton distributions for the LHC EPJC 63 (2009) 189 0901.0002
113 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the muon charge asymmetry in inclusive ppW+X production at s= 7 TeV and an improved determination of light parton distribution functions PRD 90 (2014) 032004 CMS-SMP-12-021
1312.6283
114 H1 Collaboration Inclusive deep inelastic scattering at high Q2 with longitudinally polarised lepton beams at HERA JHEP 09 (2012) 061 1206.7007
115 W. T. Giele and S. Keller Implications of hadron collider observables on parton distribution function uncertainties PRD 58 (1998) 094023 hep-ph/9803393
116 W. T. Giele, S. A. Keller, and D. A. Kosower Parton distribution function uncertainties hep-ph/0104052
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN