CMSPASTOP16014  
Measurement of the differential cross sections of top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
July 2017  
Abstract: Measurements of the differential $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ production cross section are presented in the single lepton decay channel, with respect to a number of global event observables. The measurements are performed with 35.9 fb$^{1}$ of protonproton collision data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC during 2016 at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV. The differential cross sections are measured at the particle level in a phase space similar to that accessible by the CMS detector, and are compared to stateoftheart leading order and nexttoleading order $\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}$ simulations.  
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
inSPIRE record ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, JHEP 06 (2018) 002. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
The distributions of $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $, $ {S_{\text {T}}} $, $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ and $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below each of the distributions, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Distributions of $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Distributions of $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
Distributions of $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 1d:
Distributions of $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
The distributions of $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $, and $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below each of the distributions, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events, and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
The distributions of $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events, and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
The distributions of $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data being shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events, and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Normalized $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ and $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Normalized $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Normalized $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Normalized $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 3d:
Normalized $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Normalized $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ and $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Normalized $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Normalized $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ and $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section,compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 5c:
Normalized $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 5d:
Normalized $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section,compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Absolute $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ and $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Absolute $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Absolute $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
Absolute $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 6d:
Absolute $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Absolute $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ and $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
Absolute $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
Absolute $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties.The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 7c:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 7d:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ and $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross sections, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 8a:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 8b:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 8c:
Absolute $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to different $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
png pdf 
Figure 8d:
Absolute $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower plot shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Results of a $\chi ^{2}$ test between the normalised cross sections in data and several simulation models. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Results of a $\chi ^{2}$ test between the absolute cross sections in data and several simulation models. 
Summary 
Normalized and absolute differential $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production cross sections with respect to the kinematic event variables $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ { {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $, $ {S_{\text {T}}} $, $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\mathrm{ W } }} $, $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $, and $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ have been measured using 35.9 fb$^{1}$ of protonproton collision data at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV collected by the CMS experiment and have been presented at particle level in a fiducial phase space. The total cross section was observed to be consistent with previous results, and the differential measurements have been compared to several $\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }$ production simulations: powheg+pythia, powheg+herwig, MadGRAPH+aMCCatNLO (leading order), and MadGRAPH+aMCCatNLO (nexttoleading order). The powheg+pythia simulation was shown to be consistent with the data with a pvalue of 0.96, including theoretical uncertainties. The $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ distribution was particularly wellmodeled, having been tuned on LHC 8 TeV data. Modeling of variables correlated with the top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}} $ were found to less consistent, as has been noted in other measurements. Comparing different simulations, the best agreement between the unfolded data and $\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ simulation was found with powheg+herwig, particularly in the top $p_{\mathrm{T}}$correlated variables. The nexttoleading MadGRAPH+aMCCatNLO modeling was shown to have a similar level of consistency to powheg+herwig, and significantly better than that from leading order MadGRAPH+aMCCatNLO. 
References  
1  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  CMS00001 
2  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential topquark pair production cross sections in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV  EPJC 73 (2013), no. 3  CMSTOP11013 1211.2220 
3  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV  EPJC 75 (2015), no. 11, 542  CMSTOP12028 1505.04480 
4  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of doubledifferential cross sections for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $8 TeV and impact on parton distribution functions  CMSTOP14013 1703.01630 

5  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the integrated and differential $ t \bar t $ production cross sections for high$ p_t $ top quarks in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt s = $ 8 TeV  PRD 94 (2016), no. 7, 072002  CMSTOP14012 1605.00116 
6  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production cross section in the alljets final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV  CDS  
7  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV  Submitted to: PRD (2016)  CMSTOP16008 1610.04191 
8  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of particle level differential ttbar cross sections in the dilepton channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  CMSPASTOP16007  CMSPASTOP16007 
9  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of topquark pair differential crosssections in the lepton+jets channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector  Technical Report ATLASCONF2016040, CERN, Geneva  
10  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of topquark pair differential crosssections in the $ e\mu $ channel in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector  1612.05220  
11  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential cross sections for top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s = $ 7 and 8 TeV  PRD 94 (2016), no. 5, 052006  CMSTOP12042 1607.00837 
12  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
13  P. Nason  A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
14  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 
15  T. Sj\"ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands  PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual  JHEP 05 (2006) 026  hepph/0603175 
16  T. Sj\"ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands  A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1  CPC 178 (2008) 852  0710.3820 
17  CMS Collaboration  Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 8 and 13 TeV  CMSPASTOP16021  CMSPASTOP16021 
18  M. Bahr et al.  Herwig++ Physics and Manual  EPJC 58 (2008) 639  0803.0883 
19  S. Gieseke, C. Rohr, and A. Siodmok  Colour reconnections in Herwig++  EPJC 72 (2012) 2225  1206.0041 
20  J. Alwall et al.  The automated computation of treelevel and nexttoleading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations  JHEP 07 (2014) 079  1405.0301 
21  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016), no. 3, 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
22  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 
23  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
24  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC Run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
25  M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn  Hadronic topquark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation  Nucl. Phys. B 855 (2012) 695  1109.1536 
26  M. Cacciari et al.  Toppair production at hadron colliders with nexttonexttoleading logarithmic softgluon resummation  PLB 710 (2012) 612  1111.5869 
27  P. B\"arnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov  Percent Level Precision Physics at the Tevatron: First Genuine NNLO QCD Corrections to $ q \bar{q} \to t \bar{t} + X $  PRL 109 (2012) 132001  1204.5201 
28  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  NNLO corrections to toppair production at hadron colliders: the allfermionic scattering channels  JHEP 12 (2012) 054  1207.0236 
29  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quarkgluon reaction  JHEP 01 (2013) 080  1210.6832 
30  M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov  Total TopQuark PairProduction Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through $ O(\alpha^{4}_{S}) $  PRL 110 (2013) 252004  1303.6254 
31  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the TopPair CrossSection at Hadron Colliders  CPC 185 (2014) 2930  1112.5675 
32  M. Aliev et al.  HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR  CPC 182 (2011) 1034  1007.1327 
33  P. Kant et al.  HatHor for single topquark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single topquark production in hadronic collisions  CPC 191 (2015) 74  1406.4403 
34  Y. Li and F. Petriello  Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ  PRD 86 (2012) 094034  1208.5967 
35  S. Agostinelli et al.  Geant4‚ a simulation toolkit  NIMA 506 (2003) 250  
36  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 

37  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
38  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
39  CMS Collaboration  Identification of bquark jets with the CMS experiment  JINST 8 (2013) P04013  CMSBTV12001 1211.4462 
40  CMS Collaboration  Identification of b quark jets at the CMS Experiment in the LHC Run 2  CMSPASBTV15001  CMSPASBTV15001 
41  A. Buckley et al.  Rivet user manual  CPC 184 (2013) 2803  1003.0694 
42  CMS Collaboration  Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level  CDS  
43  S. Schmitt  Tunfold, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics  Journal of Instrumentation 7 (2012), no. 10, T10003  
44  CMS Collaboration  Performance of heavy flavour identification algorithms in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV at the CMS experiment  CDS  
45  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the Inclusive $ W $ and $ Z $ Production Cross Sections in $ pp $ Collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV  JHEP 10 (2011) 132  CMSEWK10005 1107.4789 
46  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
47  CMS Collaboration  CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period  CMSPASLUM17001  CMSPASLUM17001 
48  C. Patrignani and P. D. Group  Review of particle physics  Chinese Physics C 40 (2016), no. 10, 100001  
49  M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov  NNLO QCD predictions for fullydifferential topquark pair production at the Tevatron  JHEP 05 (2016) 034  1601.05375 
50  P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo  Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune  EPJC 74 (2014), no. 8  1404.5630 
51  C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas  Scaling violations in inclusive $ {e}^{+}{e}^{ {}} $ annihilation spectra  PRD 27 (1983) 105  
52  J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands  String Formation Beyond Leading Colour  JHEP 08 (2015) 003  1505.01681 
53  S. Argyropoulos and T. Sj\"ostrand  Effects of color reconnection on $ t\bar{t} $ final states at the LHC  JHEP 11 (2014) 043  1407.6653 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 