CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-SMP-19-005
Observation and differential measurement of electroweak production of one photon and two jets in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV
Abstract: The first observation of electroweak production of a photon in association with two forward jets in proton-proton collisions is presented. The measurement uses data recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC during 2016-2018 at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. The analysis is performed in a region enriched in production via vector boson fusion, with a requirement on the transverse momentum of the leading photon to exceed 200 GeV. The cross section is measured to be 202$ ^{+36}_{-32} $ fb, at a significance with respect to the null hypothesis that exceeds five standard deviations, and in agreement with the standard model prediction of 177 $ ^{+13}_{-12} $ fb. Differential cross sections are measured as a function of various observables. Limits are set on effective field theory operators that contribute to the $ \mathrm{W} \mathrm{W}\gamma $ vertex at dimension-six. The observed 95% confidence intervals for $ c_{W} $ and $ c_{WHB} $ are [0.11, 0.16] and [$-$1.6, 1.5], respectively.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagram for EW $ \gamma \text{jj}$ production with a photon produced in vector-boson fusion.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Representative Feynman diagrams for photons produced in final state radiation (FSR, left) and initial state radiation (ISR, right).

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for photons produced in final state radiation (FSR, left) and initial state radiation (ISR, right).

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for photons produced in final state radiation (FSR, left) and initial state radiation (ISR, right).

png pdf
Figure 3:
Representative Feynman diagrams for QCD-induced production of a photon and two jets.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for QCD-induced production of a photon and two jets.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for QCD-induced production of a photon and two jets.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Distribution of (upper left) photon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (upper right) leading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, (lower left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, and (upper right) $ |\Delta\eta_{\text{jj}}| $ in data and simulation after selection but before the fit. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Distribution of (upper left) $ C_{\gamma} $, (upper right) $ \Delta R(\gamma,j_2) $,and (lower) the Zeppenfeld variable in data and simulation after selection. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the expectation with the hatched band representing the statistical uncertainty in the combined signal and background expectations.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The postfit BDT output distribution. 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 simulation.

png pdf
Figure 7:
The gap rapidity fraction as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{veto}} $ in data and simulated samples for $ \gamma \text{jj}$ and QCD $ \gamma \text{j}$. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The theory predication, calculated using MG5+PYTHIA, together with the MC statistical uncertainties are shown by the colored band.

png pdf
Figure 8:
The BDT distribution in bins of the Zeppenfeld observable after the fit to the data is shown. Signal events from different Zeppenfeld ranges at truth level are represented by different colors, while different Zeppenfeld ranges at detector level are displayed as an overlaid distribution. The labels (1,2,3,4) in different shades of green correspond to increasing ranges of the Zeppenfeld observable at the truth level. The label out refers to signal events outside the defined phase space. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties. The hatched bands represent the systematic and total uncertainties on all simulated samples after the fit. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 9-e:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 9-f:
Normalized differential cross sections, compared to SM predictions, as functions of (upper left) $ \eta_{\text{j}_1} $, (upper right) $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $, (middle left) $ m_\mathrm{jj} $, (middle right) $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\gamma $, (lower left) $ C_{\gamma} $, and (lower right) the Zeppenfeld variable.

png pdf
Figure 10:
The distribution of the DNN output trained for (left) $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and (right) $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ coefficients in data and simulation after the fit for the SM $ \gamma \text{jj}$ signal extraction. The black line shows the distribution for the $ \gamma \text{jj}$ process when non-zero values for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ or $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are used as indicated. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM simulation together with uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
The distribution of the DNN output trained for (left) $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and (right) $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ coefficients in data and simulation after the fit for the SM $ \gamma \text{jj}$ signal extraction. The black line shows the distribution for the $ \gamma \text{jj}$ process when non-zero values for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ or $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are used as indicated. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM simulation together with uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
The distribution of the DNN output trained for (left) $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and (right) $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ coefficients in data and simulation after the fit for the SM $ \gamma \text{jj}$ signal extraction. The black line shows the distribution for the $ \gamma \text{jj}$ process when non-zero values for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ or $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are used as indicated. The lower panel shows the ratio of data to SM simulation together with uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels.

png pdf
Figure 11-c:
Negative of twice in the difference in the log-likelihood as a function of $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ based on 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of CMS data at 13 TeV. Upper left, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $, showing the observed (black solid line) and expected (red dashed line) standard values, with 68% and 95% confidence intervals indicated by horizontal dashed lines. Upper right, the 1D likelihood scan for $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, similarly presenting observed and expected limits. Lower: 2D likelihood contour for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $, indicating the standard model (black cross), the best fit values (red dot), and contours corresponding to 1$ \sigma $ (red solid line) and 2$ \sigma $ (blue dashed line) confidence levels.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Event yields for the signal and background predictions with uncertainties compared with the event yield in the signal region in data.

png pdf
Table 2:
Summary of uncertainties affecting the measurement as extracted from the fit to data. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding individual contributions in quadrature.
Summary
This note presents the first observation of the electroweak production of a photon and two jets ($ \gamma \text{jj}$ ) using proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV recorded with the CMS detector in 2016-2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Events are selected by requiring a high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ photon and two jets with a large separation in pseudorapidity and a large invariant mass. The measured inclusive $ \gamma \text{jj}$ cross section is $ \sigma_{{\gamma}\text{jj} }= $ 202 $ \pm $ 7 (stat) $ ^{+35}_{-32} $ (syst) fb to compare with the expected cross section of 177 $ ^{+13}_{-12} $ fb. Normalized differential cross sections are also measured as functions of several observables and compared to standard model predictions at next to leading order in perturbative QCD. Within the uncertainties, predictions agree with measurements in all observables except the pseudorapidity of tagging jets. In particular, measured normalized cross sections differ from prediction in the $ \eta_{\text{j}_2} $ distribution by about two standard deviations. The gap fraction is measured in a signal-enriched region and found in agreement with the prediction, supporting the accuracy of the modeling of hadronic activities in VBF-like processes. A deep neural network is trained to probe new $ \mathrm{W} \mathrm{W} \gamma $ interactions in the context of an effective field theory, described by dimension-6 operators. The observed 95% confidence intervals for $ c_{\mathrm{W}} $ and $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ are $ [-0.11,0.16] $ and $ [-1.6,1.5] $, respectively. These results provide the most stringent constraint on $ c_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{B}} $ in an experimental analysis.
References
1 M. Rauch Vector-Boson fusion and Vector-Boson scattering 1610.08420
2 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the hadronic activity in events with a Z and two jets and extraction of the cross section for the electroweak production of a Z with two jets in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 TeV JHEP 10 (2013) 062 CMS-FSQ-12-019
1305.7389
3 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z-boson and distributions sensitive to vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector JHEP 04 (2014) 031 1401.7610
4 CMS Collaboration Measurement of electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=8\,\text {TeV} $ EPJC 75 (2015) 66 CMS-FSQ-12-035
1410.3153
5 CMS Collaboration Electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 $ \,\text {TeV} $ EPJC 78 (2018) 589 CMS-SMP-16-018
1712.09814
6 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the cross-section for electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt {s} $ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 775 (2017) 206 1709.10264
7 CMS Collaboration Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson and two forward jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV JHEP 11 (2016) 147 CMS-SMP-13-012
1607.06975
8 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of electroweak $ Wjj $ production and constraints on anomalous gauge couplings with the ATLAS detector EPJC 77 (2017) 474 1703.04362
9 CMS Collaboration Measurement of electroweak production of a W boson in association with two jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=13\,\text {Te}\text {V} $ EPJC 80 (2020) 43 CMS-SMP-17-011
1903.04040
10 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of isolated-photon plus two-jet production in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2020) 179 1912.09866
11 ATLAS Collaboration Observation and measurement of higgs boson decays to $ {WW}^{*} $ with the ATLAS detector PRD 92 (2014) 012006 1412.2641
12 D. L. 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
13 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
14 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
15 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
16 S. Frixione Isolated photons in perturbative QCD PLB 429 (1998) 369 hep-ph/9801442
17 E. Bothmann et al. Event generation with Sherpa 2.2 SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 034
18 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
19 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
20 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
21 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4-a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
22 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
23 CMS Collaboration Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015
CDS
24 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
25 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
26 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
27 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003
28 CMS Collaboration CMS electron and photon performance at 13 tev Conference Series 116 (2019) 2
29 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
30 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet User Manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
31 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (1900) P02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
32 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=8\,\text {TeV} $ with the ATLAS detector JHEP 2016 (2016) 5
33 J. H. Friedman Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine Annals of statistics (2001) 1189
34 CMS Collaboration The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: COMBINE Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 CMS-CAT-23-001
2404.06614
35 J. Butterworth et al. PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II JPG 43 (2016) 023001 1510.03865
36 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the cms experiment in pp collisions at 8 tev JINST 12 (2017) P02014
37 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JINST 19 (2024) P09004 CMS-EGM-18-002
2403.15518
38 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C, 2021 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
39 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Technical Report , CERN, Geneva, 2018
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
40 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Technical Report, CERN, Geneva, 2019
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
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 R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219
43 J. Ellis SMEFT Constraints on New Physics beyond the Standard Model link 2105.14942
44 I. Brivio SMEFTsim 3.0 -- a practical guide JHEP 04 (2021) 073 2012.11343
45 F. Chollet et al. Keras https://keras.io
46 M. Abadi et al. TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems Software available from tensorflow.org
https://www.tensorflow.org/
47 CMS Collaboration Electroweak production of two jets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=13\,\text {TeV} $ EPJC 78 (2018) 589
48 ATLAS Collaboration Differential cross-section measurements for the electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at ATLAS EPJC 81 (2021) 163
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN