CMS-PAS-TOP-15-008

CMS-PAS-TOP-15-008
Measurement of the top-quark mass in the dileptonic $\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }$ decay channel using the $M_{\mathrm{b}\ell}$ , $M_{\mathrm{T}2}$ , and $M_{\mathrm{b}\ell\nu}$ observables
CMS Collaboration
August 2016

Abstract: We report on a measurement of the top-quark mass ( $M_{\mathrm{t}}$ ) in the dileptonic $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ decay channel using events selected from a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . The events were recorded by the CMS detector at the LHC in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV. The analysis is based on three observables whose distribution shapes are sensitive to the value of $M_{\mathrm{t}}$ . The $M_{\mathrm{b}\ell}$ invariant mass and $M_{\mathrm{T}2}^{\mathrm{bb}}$ `stransverse mass' observables are employed in a simultaneous fit to determine the value of $M_{\mathrm{t}}$ and an overall jet energy scale factor (JSF). In a complementary approach, the $M_{\mathrm{T}2}$ -Assisted On-Shell reconstruction technique is used to construct an $M_{\mathrm{b}\ell\nu}$ invariant mass observable that is combined with $M_{\mathrm{T}2}^{\mathrm{bb}}$ to measure $M_{\mathrm{t}}$ . The shapes of the observables, along with their evolutions in $M_{\mathrm{t}}$ and JSF, are modeled by a non-parametric Gaussian Process regression technique. The top-quark mass is measured to be 172.22 $\pm$ 0.18 (stat) $^{+0.89}_{-0.93}$ (syst) GeV.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PRD 96 (2017) 032002. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures & Tables	Summary	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1-a: (a) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell }}$ distribution in data and simulation with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}=$ 172.5 GeV, normalized to the number of events in the 8 TeV dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . Statistical and systematic uncertainties on the distribution in simulation are represented by the grey shaded area. A description of the systematic uncertainties is given in Section 8. (b) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell }}$ distribution shapes in simulation corresponding to three values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ are shown in grey. The `local shape sensitivity' function, described in Appendix A, is shown in red.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: (a) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell }}$ distribution in data and simulation with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}=$ 172.5 GeV, normalized to the number of events in the 8 TeV dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . Statistical and systematic uncertainties on the distribution in simulation are represented by the grey shaded area. A description of the systematic uncertainties is given in Section 8. (b) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell }}$ distribution shapes in simulation corresponding to three values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ are shown in grey. The `local shape sensitivity' function, described in Appendix A, is shown in red.
png pdf	Figure 2: ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}}$ subsystems in the dileptonic ${\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}$ event topology.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: (a) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}^{\mathrm {bb}}}$ distribution in data and simulation with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}=$ 172.5 GeV, normalized to the number of events in the 8 TeV dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . Statistical and systematic uncertainties on the distribution in simulation are represented by the grey shaded area. (b) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}^{\mathrm {bb}}}$ distribution shapes in simulation corresponding to three values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ are shown in grey. The `local shape sensitivity' function is shown in red.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: (a) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}^{\mathrm {bb}}}$ distribution in data and simulation with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}=$ 172.5 GeV, normalized to the number of events in the 8 TeV dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . Statistical and systematic uncertainties on the distribution in simulation are represented by the grey shaded area. (b) the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}^{\mathrm {bb}}}$ distribution shapes in simulation corresponding to three values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ are shown in grey. The `local shape sensitivity' function is shown in red.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: (a) the MAOS ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell \nu }}$ distribution in data and simulation with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}=$ 172.5 GeV, normalized to the number of events in the 8 TeV dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . Statistical and systematic uncertainties on the distribution in simulation are represented by the grey shaded area. (b) the MAOS ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell \nu }}$ distribution shapes in simulation corresponding to three values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ are shown in grey. The `local shape sensitivity' function is shown in red.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: (a) the MAOS ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell \nu }}$ distribution in data and simulation with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}=$ 172.5 GeV, normalized to the number of events in the 8 TeV dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ . Statistical and systematic uncertainties on the distribution in simulation are represented by the grey shaded area. (b) the MAOS ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell \nu }}$ distribution shapes in simulation corresponding to three values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ are shown in grey. The `local shape sensitivity' function is shown in red.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: The (left) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell }}$ and (right) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}^{\mathrm {bb}}}$ distributions in MC with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}= 172.5$ GeV for several values of JSF.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: The (left) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {b}\ell }}$ and (right) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {T}2}^{\mathrm {bb}}}$ distributions in MC with ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}= 172.5$ GeV for several values of JSF.
png pdf	Figure 6: Demonstration of the GP conditioning process (Eqs. (9) et (10)) for one training point and one test point. The covariance between the value of the shape at the training and test point is represented by the red ellipse. The known value of the shape at the training point (blue square) determines the mean value of the shape at the test point (green circle).
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Likelihood fit results using 50 pseudo-experiments in MC simulation, with values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ ranging from 166.5 to 178.5 GeV. A calibration curve of the form $y=ax + b$ is determined for each fit configuration. Measured values of (a) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and (b) JSF are shown for the 2D fit, and measured values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ are shown for the (c) 1D, (d) MAOS, and (e) hybrid fits.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Likelihood fit results using 50 pseudo-experiments in MC simulation, with values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ ranging from 166.5 to 178.5 GeV. A calibration curve of the form $y=ax + b$ is determined for each fit configuration. Measured values of (a) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and (b) JSF are shown for the 2D fit, and measured values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ are shown for the (c) 1D, (d) MAOS, and (e) hybrid fits.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Likelihood fit results using 50 pseudo-experiments in MC simulation, with values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ ranging from 166.5 to 178.5 GeV. A calibration curve of the form $y=ax + b$ is determined for each fit configuration. Measured values of (a) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and (b) JSF are shown for the 2D fit, and measured values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ are shown for the (c) 1D, (d) MAOS, and (e) hybrid fits.
png pdf	Figure 7-d: Likelihood fit results using 50 pseudo-experiments in MC simulation, with values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ ranging from 166.5 to 178.5 GeV. A calibration curve of the form $y=ax + b$ is determined for each fit configuration. Measured values of (a) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and (b) JSF are shown for the 2D fit, and measured values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ are shown for the (c) 1D, (d) MAOS, and (e) hybrid fits.
png pdf	Figure 7-e: Likelihood fit results using 50 pseudo-experiments in MC simulation, with values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}^{\text {MC}}}$ ranging from 166.5 to 178.5 GeV. A calibration curve of the form $y=ax + b$ is determined for each fit configuration. Measured values of (a) ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and (b) JSF are shown for the 2D fit, and measured values of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ are shown for the (c) 1D, (d) MAOS, and (e) hybrid fits.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Likelihood fit results using 1k bootstrap pseudo-experiments for the (a,b) 2D fit, (c) 1D fit, (d) MAOS fit. (e) hybrid fit results given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fits (Eq. (4)).
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Likelihood fit results using 1k bootstrap pseudo-experiments for the (a,b) 2D fit, (c) 1D fit, (d) MAOS fit. (e) hybrid fit results given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fits (Eq. (4)).
png pdf	Figure 8-c: Likelihood fit results using 1k bootstrap pseudo-experiments for the (a,b) 2D fit, (c) 1D fit, (d) MAOS fit. (e) hybrid fit results given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fits (Eq. (4)).
png pdf	Figure 8-d: Likelihood fit results using 1k bootstrap pseudo-experiments for the (a,b) 2D fit, (c) 1D fit, (d) MAOS fit. (e) hybrid fit results given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fits (Eq. (4)).
png pdf	Figure 8-e: Likelihood fit results using 1k bootstrap pseudo-experiments for the (a,b) 2D fit, (c) 1D fit, (d) MAOS fit. (e) hybrid fit results given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fits (Eq. (4)).
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Likelihood fit results corresponding to the 2D fit (a) and hybrid fit (b), obtained using 1k pseudo-experiments constructed with the bootstrapping technique. The shaded gray histogram represents the number of pseudo-experiments in each bin of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and JSF. Two-dimensional contours corresponding to $-2\Delta \log(\mathcal {L})=1(4)$ are shown in red to indicate the one (two) sigma statistical intervals in ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and JSF. The hybrid fit results are given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fit results using Eq. (14). The correlation coefficient between the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and JSF parameters is $-0.94$ in the 2D fit and $-0.40$ in the hybrid fit.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Likelihood fit results corresponding to the 2D fit (a) and hybrid fit (b), obtained using 1k pseudo-experiments constructed with the bootstrapping technique. The shaded gray histogram represents the number of pseudo-experiments in each bin of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and JSF. Two-dimensional contours corresponding to $-2\Delta \log(\mathcal {L})=1(4)$ are shown in red to indicate the one (two) sigma statistical intervals in ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and JSF. The hybrid fit results are given by a linear combination of the 1D and 2D fit results using Eq. (14). The correlation coefficient between the ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ and JSF parameters is $-0.94$ in the 2D fit and $-0.40$ in the hybrid fit.
png pdf	Figure 10-a: Maximum likelihood fit result in a typical pseudo-experiment of the 2D likelihood fit. The best-fit parameter values for this pseudo-experiment are ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}=$ 171.99 GeV and ${\mathrm {JSF}}=$ 1.007.
png pdf	Figure 10-b: Maximum likelihood fit result in a typical pseudo-experiment of the 2D likelihood fit. The best-fit parameter values for this pseudo-experiment are ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}=$ 171.99 GeV and ${\mathrm {JSF}}=$ 1.007.
png pdf	Figure 11-a: Maximum likelihood fit result in a typical pseudo-experiment of the 1D likelihood fit. The best-fit value of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ for this pseudo-experiment is 172.48 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 11-b: Maximum likelihood fit result in a typical pseudo-experiment of the 1D likelihood fit. The best-fit value of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ for this pseudo-experiment is 172.48 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 12-a: Maximum likelihood fit result in a typical pseudo-experiment of the MAOS likelihood fit. The best-fit value of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ for this pseudo-experiment is 171.54 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 12-b: Maximum likelihood fit result in a typical pseudo-experiment of the MAOS likelihood fit. The best-fit value of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ for this pseudo-experiment is 171.54 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 13: Summary of the 1D, 2D, hybrid, and MAOS likelihood fit results using the CMS 2012 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ and $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV. The most recent combination of ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ measurements by CMS [5] is shown for reference.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Estimate of signal and background composition in MC simulation, normalized to the number of events observed in the full dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 19.7 $\pm$ 0.5 fb $^{-1}$ and $sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV . The contributions of these processes to the distribution shapes are shown in Figs. 1, 3, and 4, where the single top, diboson, W+jets, and Drell Yan processes are included in the `non-ttbar bkg' category. The ${\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}$ category includes: `signal' dilepton events; `mistag' where a light quark or gluon jet is incorrectly selected by the b tagging algorithm; `tau decays' where dilepton events include one $\tau$ in the final state subsequently decaying leptonically; and `hadronic decays' that include events where one of the top quarks decays hadronically.
png pdf	Table 2: Systematic uncertainties for the 2D, 1D, hybrid, and MAOS likelihood fits. The breakdown of JES uncertainties into four separate components is shown, where the components are added in quadrature to obtain the total. The `up' and `down' variations are given separately, with the sign of each variation indicating the direction of the corresponding shift in ${\mathrm {M}_{\mathrm {t}}}$ or JSF. The $\star$ character highlights the uncertainty sources that are large in at least one of the likelihood fits.

Summary

We have presented a measurement of the top-quark mass using events in the dileptonic

$\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }$ decay channel selected from a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of (lumi)inosity and center of mass energy

$\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV. The measurement is based on the

${M_{\mathrm{b}}\ell}$ ,

${M_{\mathrm{T}2}^{\mathrm{bb}}}$ , and MAOS

${M_{\mathrm{b}\ell\nu}}$ observables, which allow for mass reconstruction in decay topologies that are kinematically underconstrained. These observables are employed in three versions of an event-by-event likelihood fit, where a GP technique is used to model the corresponding distribution shapes and their evolution in the

${M_{\mathrm{t}}}$ and JSF parameters. The GP shapes are non-parametric, and allow for a likelihood fitting framework that gives unbiased results. The results for each version of the likelihood fit are summarized in Fig. 13. The 2D fit provides a measurement of

${M_{\mathrm{t}}}$ that is robust against uncertainties due to the determination of JES, yielding 171.56

$\pm$ 0.46 (stat)

$^{+1.31}_{-1.25}$ (syst) GeV and 1.011

$\pm$ 0.006 (stat)

$^{+0.015}_{-0.014}$ (syst). The most precise measurement of the top quark mass is given by the hybrid fit, which gives 172.22

$\pm$ 0.18 (stat)

$^{+0.89}_{-0.93}$ (syst) GeV.

References
1	Gfitter Group Collaboration	The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC	EPJC 74 (2014) 3046	1407.3792
2	G. Degrassi et al.	Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO	JHEP 08 (2012) 098	1205.6497
3	A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart	Top Mass Measurements from Jets and the Tevatron Top-Quark Mass	NPPS 185 (2008) 220	0808.0222
4	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the top quark mass in the $t\bar{t}\to$ dilepton channel from $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV ATLAS data		1606.02179
5	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the top quark mass using proton-proton data at ${\sqrt{s}}$ = 7 and 8 TeV	PRD 93 (2016) 072004	CMS-TOP-14-022 1509.04044
6	ATLAS, CDF, CMS, D0 Collaboration	First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the top-quark mass		1403.4427
7	A. J. Barr and C. G. Lester	A Review of the Mass Measurement Techniques proposed for the Large Hadron Collider	JPG 37 (2010) 123001	1004.2732
8	C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers	Measuring masses of semi-invisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders	PLB 463 (1999) 99	hep-ph/9906349
9	H.-C. Cheng and Z. Han	Minimal Kinematic Constraints and m(T2)	JHEP 12 (2008) 063	0810.5178
10	W. S. Cho, K. Choi, Y. G. Kim, and C. B. Park	M(T2)-assisted on-shell reconstruction of missing momenta and its application to spin measurement at the LHC	PRD 79 (2009) 031701	0810.4853
11	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of masses in the $t \bar{t}$ system by kinematic endpoints in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV	EPJC 73 (2013) 2494	CMS-TOP-11-027 1304.5783
12	C. Rasmussen and C. Williams		MIT Press, 2006 ISBN 026218253X
13	C. Bishop		Springer-Verlag, New York, 1 edition, 2006 ISBN 978-0-387-31073-2
14	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
15	CMS Collaboration	Commissioning of the Particle-Flow reconstruction in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from pp Collisions at 7 TeV	CDS
16	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
17	CMS Collaboration	Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in $pp$ collision events at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV	JINST 7 (2012) P10002	CMS-MUO-10-004 1206.4071
18	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- $k_t$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
19	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet User Manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
20	CMS Collaboration	Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS	JINST 6 (2011) P11002	CMS-JME-10-011 1107.4277
21	CMS Collaboration	Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment	JINST 8 (2013) P04013	CMS-BTV-12-001 1211.4462
22	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
23	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
24	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands	PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual	JHEP 05 (2006) 026	hep-ph/0603175
25	S. Jadach, Z. Was, R. Decker, and J. H. Kuhn	The tau decay library TAUOLA: Version 2.4	CPC 76 (1993) 361
26	W.-K. Tung	New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis	Acta Phys. Polon. B 33 (2002) 2933	hep-ph/0206114
27	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, , [Erratum: JHEP02,011(2010)]	0907.4076
28	E. Re	Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method	EPJC 71 (2011) 1547	1009.2450
29	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
30	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
31	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
32	N. Kidonakis	Next-to-next-to-leading soft-gluon corrections for the top quark cross section and transverse momentum distribution	PRD 82 (2010) 114030	1009.4935
33	N. Kidonakis	Differential and total cross sections for top pair and single top production	in Proceedings, 20th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (DIS 2012)	1205.3453
34	K. Melnikov and F. Petriello	Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through O(alpha(s)**2)	PRD 74 (2006) 114017	hep-ph/0609070
35	J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis	MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC	NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10	1007.3492
36	M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov	Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through $O(α\frac{4}{S})$	PRL 110 (2013) 252004	1303.6254
37	M. Burns, K. Kong, K. T. Matchev, and M. Park	Using Subsystem MT2 for Complete Mass Determinations in Decay Chains with Missing Energy at Hadron Colliders	JHEP 03 (2009) 143	0810.5576
38	B. Efron and R. Tibshirani		Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Chapman & Hall
39	CMS and ATLAS Collaboration	Jet energy scale uncertainty correlations between ATLAS and CMS at 8 TeV	CMS-PAS-JME-15-001, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-049
40	M. Bahr et al.	Herwig++ Physics and Manual	EPJC 58 (2008) 639	0803.0883
41	CMS Collaboration	Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment	JINST 8 (2013) P04013	CMS-BTV-12-001 1211.4462
42	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 8\,\text {TeV}$	EPJC 75 (2015) 542	CMS-TOP-12-028 1505.04480
43	P. Z. Skands	Tuning Monte Carlo Generators: The Perugia Tunes	PRD 82 (2010) 074018	1005.3457
44	H.-L. Lai et al.	New parton distributions for collider physics	PRD 82 (2010) 074024	1007.2241
45	ALEPH Collaboration	Study of the fragmentation of b quarks into B mesons at the Z peak	PLB 512 (2001) 30	hep-ex/0106051
46	DELPHI Collaboration	A study of the b-quark fragmentation function with the DELPHI detector at LEP I and an averaged distribution obtained at the Z Pole	EPJC 71 (2011) 1557	1102.4748
47	H. Cr\'amer		Princeton University Press
48	A. DasGupta		Springer