CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-SMP-22-018
Measurement of $ \mathrm{WZ}\gamma $ production and constraints on new physics scenarios in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Abstract: A measurement of the $ \mathrm{WZ}\gamma $ triboson production predicted by the standard model is reported. The analysis uses a data sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. The analysis uses the final state containing three charged leptons, $ \mathrm{WZ}\rightarrow\ell\nu\ell'\ell' $, where $ \ell, \ell' = \mathrm{e} $ or $ \mu $, plus an additional photon. The observed (expected) significance of the $ \mathrm{WZ}\gamma $ signal is 5.4 (3.8) standard deviations. The cross section is measured in a fiducial region to be 5.48 $ \pm $ 1.11 fb, which can be compared with the prediction of 3.69 $ \pm $ 0.15 $ \ (\mathrm{PDF}) \pm 0.19\ (\mathrm{scale}) $ fb at next-to-leading order in quantum chromodynamics. Exclusions limits at the 95% confidence level are placed on anomalous quartic gauge couplings and on the production of massive axion-like particles.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production at LO in QCD, including production through QGCs (left), TGCs (second from left) and multiperipheral (third from left). The right plot shows the $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production including an ALP which decays to a Z boson and a photon.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production at LO in QCD, including production through QGCs (left), TGCs (second from left) and multiperipheral (third from left). The right plot shows the $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production including an ALP which decays to a Z boson and a photon.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production at LO in QCD, including production through QGCs (left), TGCs (second from left) and multiperipheral (third from left). The right plot shows the $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production including an ALP which decays to a Z boson and a photon.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Representative Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production at LO in QCD, including production through QGCs (left), TGCs (second from left) and multiperipheral (third from left). The right plot shows the $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production including an ALP which decays to a Z boson and a photon.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
Representative Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production at LO in QCD, including production through QGCs (left), TGCs (second from left) and multiperipheral (third from left). The right plot shows the $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ production including an ALP which decays to a Z boson and a photon.

png pdf
Figure 2:
The distributions of the kinematic variables used in the simultaneous fit for the nonprompt $ \ell $ CR (left top), nonprompt $ \gamma $ CR (right top), ZZ CR (left bottom), and SR (right bottom) after the fit to the data. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the shaded band represents the predicted uncertainties. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The shaded bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The vertical bars on the filled circles represent the statistical uncertainties in the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
The distributions of the kinematic variables used in the simultaneous fit for the nonprompt $ \ell $ CR (left top), nonprompt $ \gamma $ CR (right top), ZZ CR (left bottom), and SR (right bottom) after the fit to the data. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the shaded band represents the predicted uncertainties. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The shaded bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The vertical bars on the filled circles represent the statistical uncertainties in the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
The distributions of the kinematic variables used in the simultaneous fit for the nonprompt $ \ell $ CR (left top), nonprompt $ \gamma $ CR (right top), ZZ CR (left bottom), and SR (right bottom) after the fit to the data. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the shaded band represents the predicted uncertainties. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The shaded bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The vertical bars on the filled circles represent the statistical uncertainties in the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
The distributions of the kinematic variables used in the simultaneous fit for the nonprompt $ \ell $ CR (left top), nonprompt $ \gamma $ CR (right top), ZZ CR (left bottom), and SR (right bottom) after the fit to the data. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the shaded band represents the predicted uncertainties. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The shaded bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The vertical bars on the filled circles represent the statistical uncertainties in the data.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
The distributions of the kinematic variables used in the simultaneous fit for the nonprompt $ \ell $ CR (left top), nonprompt $ \gamma $ CR (right top), ZZ CR (left bottom), and SR (right bottom) after the fit to the data. The black points with error bars represent the data and their statistical uncertainties, whereas the shaded band represents the predicted uncertainties. The bottom panel in each figure shows the ratio of the number of events observed in data to that of the total SM prediction. The shaded bands represent the uncertainties in the predicted yields. The vertical bars on the filled circles represent the statistical uncertainties in the data.

png pdf
Figure 3:
(left) Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $ \sigma(pp\rightarrow Wa)\mathcal{B}(W\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu_\ell)\mathcal{B}(a\rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\gamma)\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-) $ as a function of the ALP mass. The red line corresponds to the theoretical prediction for 1$ /f_a= $ 2 TeV$^{-1} $. (right) Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the photophobic ALP model parameter 1$ /f_a $ as a function of ALP mass reinterpreted from 1$ /f_a= $ 2 TeV$^{-1} $. The blue line indicates the point at which the energy scale of $ f_a $ matches that of the ALP mass.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
(left) Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $ \sigma(pp\rightarrow Wa)\mathcal{B}(W\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu_\ell)\mathcal{B}(a\rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\gamma)\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-) $ as a function of the ALP mass. The red line corresponds to the theoretical prediction for 1$ /f_a= $ 2 TeV$^{-1} $. (right) Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the photophobic ALP model parameter 1$ /f_a $ as a function of ALP mass reinterpreted from 1$ /f_a= $ 2 TeV$^{-1} $. The blue line indicates the point at which the energy scale of $ f_a $ matches that of the ALP mass.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
(left) Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the product of the cross section and branching fraction $ \sigma(pp\rightarrow Wa)\mathcal{B}(W\rightarrow \ell^+ \nu_\ell)\mathcal{B}(a\rightarrow \mathrm{Z}\gamma)\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{Z}\rightarrow \ell^+ \ell^-) $ as a function of the ALP mass. The red line corresponds to the theoretical prediction for 1$ /f_a= $ 2 TeV$^{-1} $. (right) Expected and observed 95% upper limits on the photophobic ALP model parameter 1$ /f_a $ as a function of ALP mass reinterpreted from 1$ /f_a= $ 2 TeV$^{-1} $. The blue line indicates the point at which the energy scale of $ f_a $ matches that of the ALP mass.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Summary of the event selections in SR, nonprompt CRs, and the ZZ CR. The nonprompt CRs are used to validate and constrain the nonprompt lepton and photon contributions, and the ZZ CR is used to constrain the ZZ contribution. A ``$ \text{---} $'' indicates that no requirement is placed on the corresponding observable. The aQGC SR is similar to the SR with the exception that $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > $ 60 GeV.

png pdf
Table 2:
Expected yields after the combined fit for the relevant processes in the signal region and control regions. All analysis uncertainties are included.

png pdf
Table 3:
Summary of the relative contributions of typical uncertainties to the value of the signal strength in the measurement of the SM $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ signal.

png pdf
Table 4:
Exclusion limits at the 95% CL for each aQGC coefficient, assuming all other coefficients are set to zero. Unitarity bounds corresponding to each operator are also listed.
Summary
A measurement of the standard model (SM) production of $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}\gamma $ with both W and Z boson decay leptonically has been presented. Results are based on the data collected in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in the CMS detector during 2016-2018, which corresponding to a integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Events are selected by requiring an identified photon, missing transverse momentum, as well as three identified leptons, of which two correspond to an on-shell Z boson. The observed significance for the SM signal is 5.4 standard deviations, while a significance of 3.8 standard deviations is expected based on the SM prediction. The measured fiducial cross section of leptonic WZ$ \gamma $ production is $ \sigma_{\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\rightarrow\ell\nu\ell'\ell'\gamma}= $ 5.48 $ \pm $ 1.11 fb, where $ \ell = \mathrm{e} $ or $ \mu $, is in good agreement with the NLO QCD prediction. Constraints are placed on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in terms of dimension-eight operators in effective field theory. Upper limits on the photophobic axion-like particles (ALPs) are set as a function of ALPs mass. Equivalent limits for the ALPs mass and coupling parameters within the ALPs model are reported, including some of the most stringent constraints for mass points between $ m_a= $ 200 GeV and $ m_a= $ 400 GeV, as well as the first interpretation for masses between $ m_a= $ 110 GeV and $ m_a= $ 200 GeV.
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 Collaboration Observation of $ WZ\gamma $ production in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRL 132 (2024) 021802 2305.16994
5 C. Degrande et al. Effective field theory: A modern approach to anomalous couplings Annals Phys. 335 (2013) 21 1205.4231
6 S. Weinberg A New Light Boson? PRL 40 (1978) 223
7 F. Wilczek Problem of Strong $ P $ and $ T $ Invariance in the Presence of Instantons PRL 40 (1978) 279
8 K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71 (2021) 225 2012.05029
9 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of light-by-light scattering and search for axion-like particles with 2.2 nb$ ^{-1} $ of Pb+Pb data with the ATLAS detector JHEP 03 (2021) 243 2008.05355
10 M. Bauer, M. Heiles, M. Neubert, and A. Thamm Axion-Like Particles at Future Colliders EPJC 79 (2019) 74 1808.10323
11 L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli The landscape of QCD axion models Phys. Rept. 870 (2020) 1 2003.01100
12 R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles PRL 38 (1977) 1440
13 R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn Constraints imposed by CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles PRD 16 (1977) 1791
14 N. Craig, A. Hook, and S. Kasko The Photophobic ALP JHEP 09 (2018) 028 1805.06538
15 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
16 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
17 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
18 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
19 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
20 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
21 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
22 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
23 T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi W$^{+}$W$^{-} $, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX JHEP 11 (2011) 078 1107.5051
24 J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205 (2010) 10 1007.3492
25 O. Mattelaer On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy EPJC 76 (2016) 674 1607.00763
26 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
27 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
28 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
29 J. Allison et al. GEANT4 developments and applications IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270
30 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inclusive W and 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
31 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
32 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
33 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
34 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
35 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
36 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Pileup subtraction using jet areas PLB 659 (2008) 119 0707.1378
37 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
38 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
39 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
40 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
41 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
42 CMS Collaboration 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 PRD 104 (2021) 072001 CMS-SMP-20-016
2106.11082
43 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the W$ \gamma $ Production Cross Section in Proton-Proton Collisions at $ \sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV and Constraints on Effective Field Theory Coefficients PRL 126 (2021) 252002 CMS-SMP-19-002
2102.02283
44 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS EPJC 81 (2021) 800 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
45 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018
link
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
46 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019
link
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
47 J. Butterworth et al. PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II JPG 43 (2016) 023001 1510.03865
48 CMS Collaboration The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine Accepted by Comput. Softw. Big Sci, 2024 CMS-CAT-23-001
2404.06614
49 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 O($ \alpha^6_{\rm em} $) and O($ \alpha_{\rm em}^4 \alpha_{\rm s}^2 $) for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC PRD 74 (2006) 073005 hep-ph/0606118
50 CMS Collaboration Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV EPJC 75 (2015) 212 CMS-HIG-14-009
1412.8662
51 K. Arnold et al. VBFNLO: A parton level Monte Carlo for processes with electroweak bosons Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1661 0811.4559
52 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
53 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CL$ _{\mathrm{s}} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN