CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-TOP-17-005
Measurement of top quark pair-production in association with a W or Z boson in pp collisions at 13 TeV
Abstract: We present a measurement of the cross section of top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson, in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV at the LHC. The data sample used corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$, collected in 2016 by the CMS experiment. The measurement is performed in same-charge dilepton, three- and four-lepton final states where the jet and b-jet multiplicities are exploited to enhance the signal-to-background ratio. The $\mathrm{t\overline{t}W}$ and $\mathrm{t\overline{t}Z}$ production cross sections are measured to be $\sigma(\mathrm{t\overline{t}W})= $ 0.80$^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ (stat.) $^{+0.13}_{-0.12}$ (sys.) pb and $\sigma(\mathrm{t\overline{t}Z})= $ 1.00$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ (stat.) $^{+0.12}_{-0.10}$ (sys.) pb with an expected (observed) significance of 4.6 (5.5) and 9.5 (9.9) standard deviations from the background-only hypothesis respectively. The measured cross sections are in agreement with the standard model prediction. We use these measurements to constrain the Wilson coefficients for four dimension-six operators which would modify $\mathrm{t\overline{t}Z}$ and $\mathrm{t\overline{t}W}$ production.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The leading order Feynman diagram for $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $, $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ production at the LHC. The charge conjugate of the diagrams shown is implied.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
The leading order Feynman diagram for $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ production at the LHC. The charge conjugate of the diagram shown is implied.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
The leading order Feynman diagram for $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ production at the LHC. The charge conjugate of the diagram shown is implied.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distribution of different kinematic variables in data compared to the estimated expectations. From left to right: jet multplicity and b-jet multiplicity (top), ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (center), trailing lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and event yields (bottom). The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distribution of Jet multplicity in data compared to the estimated expectation. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distribution of b-jet multiplicity in data compared to the estimated expectation. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Distribution of ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in data compared to the estimated expectation. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Distribution of ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ in data compared to the estimated expectation. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 2-e:
Distribution of trailing lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ in data compared to the estimated expectation. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 2-f:
Distribution of event yields in data compared to the estimated expectation. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 3:
BDT value distribution for background and signal processes. The expected contribution from the different background processes are stacked as well as the expected contribution from the signal. The shaded band represents the uncertainty in the prediction of the background and the signal processes.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Nonprompt control region plots in dilepton channel with BDT $<$ 0: distributions of the total yields versus jet multiplicity and transverse momentum of the trailing lepton.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Nonprompt control region plot in dilepton channel with BDT $<$ 0: distribution of the total yields versus jet multiplicity.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Nonprompt control region plot in dilepton channel with BDT $<$ 0: distribution of the total yields versus transverse momentum of the trailing lepton.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Nonprompt control region plots in trilepton channel: distributions of the total yields versus lepton channel, missing transverse energy and (b-tagged) jet multiplicity.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Nonprompt control region plot in trilepton channel: distribution of the total yields versus lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Nonprompt control region plot in trilepton channel: distribution of the total yields versus missing transverse energy.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Nonprompt control region plot in trilepton channel: distribution of the total yields versus b-tagged jet multiplicity.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Nonprompt control region plot in trilepton channel: distribution of the total yields versus jet multiplicity.

png pdf
Figure 6:
WZ control region plots: Distributions of the total yields versus lepton channel, jet multiplicity, transverse mass of the lepton and the missing transverse energy and the reconstructed invariant mass of the Z boson candidates. For all the plots the requirement on jet multiplicity is suppressed.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
WZ control region plot: Distribution of the total yields versus lepton channel. The requirement on jet multiplicity is suppressed.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
WZ control region plot: Distribution of the total yields versus jet multiplicity. The requirement on jet multiplicity is suppressed.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
WZ control region plot: Distribution of the total yields versus the transverse mass of the lepton and the missing transverse energy. The requirement on jet multiplicity is suppressed.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
WZ control region plot: Distribution of the total yields versus the reconstructed invariant mass of the Z boson candidates. The requirement on jet multiplicity is suppressed.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Data-MC comparison for the Z candidates mass (top left), event yields (top right), jet multiplicity (bottom left) and b-jet multiplicity (bottom right) in a ZZ-dominated background control region

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Data-MC comparison for the Z candidates mass in a ZZ-dominated background control region

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Data-MC comparison for the event yields in a ZZ-dominated background control region

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Data-MC comparison for the jet multiplicity in a ZZ-dominated background control region

png pdf
Figure 7-d:
Data-MC comparison for the b-jet multiplicity in a ZZ-dominated background control region

png pdf
Figure 8:
Distributions of the predicted and observed yields versus the kinematic variables in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ signal enriched region for same charge dilepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ signal enriched region for same charge dilepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ signal enriched region for same charge dilepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 8-c:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ signal enriched region for same charge dilepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 8-d:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ signal enriched region for same charge dilepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Distributions of the predicted and observed yields versus the kinematic variables in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9-e:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 9-f:
Distribution of the predicted and observed yields in ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ signal enriched region for three lepton channel.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in each analysis bin in the same-sign dilepton analysis.The hatched band shows the total uncertainty associated to signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in $ {N_\text {jets}} = $ 2, 3 and $\geq $4 categories in the three-lepton analyses. The hatched band shows the total uncertainty associated to signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in the four-lepton analyses. The hatched band shows the total uncertainty associated to signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 13:
The result of the two-dimensional best fit for ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } }$ and ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } }$ cross sections (cross symbol) is shown along with its 68 and 95% confidence level contours. The result of this fit is superimposed with the separate ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } }$ and ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } }$ cross section measurements, and the corresponding 1$\sigma $ bands, obtained from the dilepton, and the three-lepton/four-lepton channels, respectively. The figure also shows the predictions from theory and the corresponding uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 14:
Leading order Feynman diagrams involving NP vertices due to the operator which is proportional to $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $, $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $, and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ (left), and $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 14-a:
Leading order Feynman diagram involving the NP vertex due to the operator which is proportional to $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $, $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $, and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $.

png pdf
Figure 14-b:
Leading order Feynman diagram involving the NP vertex due to the operator which is proportional to $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $.

png pdf
Figure 14-c:
Leading order Feynman diagrams involving NP vertices due to the operator which is proportional to $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $, $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $, and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ (left), and $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 14-d:
Leading order Feynman diagrams involving NP vertices due to the operator which is proportional to $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $, $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $, and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ (left), and $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ (right).

png pdf
Figure 15:
Signal strength as a function of $c_j$ for $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $ (top left), $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ (top right), $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $ (bottom left), and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ (bottom right). All three processes are affected by $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $, while only $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm {H}} $ is affected by $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ and only $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ is affected by $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $. Both $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm {H}} $ are sensitive to $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $.

png pdf
Figure 15-a:
Signal strength as a function of $c_j$ for $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $. All three processes are affected by $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $.

png pdf
Figure 15-b:
Signal strength as a function of $c_j$ for $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $. Only $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm {H}} $ is affected by $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $.

png pdf
Figure 15-c:
Signal strength as a function of $c_j$ for $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $. Both $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm {H}} $ are sensitive to $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $.

png pdf
Figure 15-d:
Signal strength as a function of $c_j$ for $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $. Only $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ is affected by $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $.

png pdf
Figure 16:
The 1D test statistic $q(c_j)$ scan versus $c_j$, profiling all other nuisance parameters, for $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $ (top left), $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ (top right), $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $ (bottom left), and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ (bottom right). The best-fit value is indicated by a solid line. Dotted lines and dashed lines indicate 1 $\sigma $ CLs and 2 $\sigma $ CLs, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 16-a:
The 1D test statistic $q(c_j)$ scan versus $c_j$, profiling all other nuisance parameters, for $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $. The best-fit value is indicated by a solid line. Dotted lines and dashed lines indicate 1 $\sigma $ CLs and 2 $\sigma $ CLs, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 16-b:
The 1D test statistic $q(c_j)$ scan versus $c_j$, profiling all other nuisance parameters, for $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $. The best-fit value is indicated by a solid line. Dotted lines and dashed lines indicate 1 $\sigma $ CLs and 2 $\sigma $ CLs, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 16-c:
The 1D test statistic $q(c_j)$ scan versus $c_j$, profiling all other nuisance parameters, for $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $. The best-fit value is indicated by a solid line. Dotted lines and dashed lines indicate 1 $\sigma $ CLs and 2 $\sigma $ CLs, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 16-d:
The 1D test statistic $q(c_j)$ scan versus $c_j$, profiling all other nuisance parameters, for $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $. The best-fit value is indicated by a solid line. Dotted lines and dashed lines indicate 1 $\sigma $ CLs and 2 $\sigma $ CLs, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 17:
The $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ cross section corresponding to the best-fit value of $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $ (top left), $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ (top right), $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $ (bottom left), and $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ (bottom right) is shown as a star, along with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ (red) and 2$\sigma $ (blue) contours. The two-dimensional best fit to the $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ cross sections is shown as a cross symbol. Predictions from theory at NLO (dotted lines) and their uncertanties (hatches) are also shown.

png pdf
Figure 17-a:
The $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ cross section corresponding to the best-fit value of $ {\bar{c}_{uW}} $ is shown as a star, along with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ (red) and 2$\sigma $ (blue) contours. The two-dimensional best fit to the $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ cross sections is shown as a cross symbol. Predictions from theory at NLO (dotted lines) and their uncertanties (hatches) are also shown.

png pdf
Figure 17-b:
The $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ cross section corresponding to the best-fit value of $ {\bar{c}_{u}} $ is shown as a star, along with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ (red) and 2$\sigma $ (blue) contours. The two-dimensional best fit to the $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ cross sections is shown as a cross symbol. Predictions from theory at NLO (dotted lines) and their uncertanties (hatches) are also shown.

png pdf
Figure 17-c:
The $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ cross section corresponding to the best-fit value of $ {\bar{c}_{uB}} $ is shown as a star, along with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ (red) and 2$\sigma $ (blue) contours. The two-dimensional best fit to the $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ cross sections is shown as a cross symbol. Predictions from theory at NLO (dotted lines) and their uncertanties (hatches) are also shown.

png pdf
Figure 17-d:
The $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ cross section corresponding to the best-fit value of $ {\bar{c}_{Hu}} $ is shown as a star, along with the corresponding 1$\sigma $ (red) and 2$\sigma $ (blue) contours. The two-dimensional best fit to the $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ cross sections is shown as a cross symbol. Predictions from theory at NLO (dotted lines) and their uncertanties (hatches) are also shown.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Summary of the sources of uncertainties, their magnitudes and effects. The first column shows the input uncertainty on each background and signal, while the second and third columns are the postfit uncertainties on ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } }$ and ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ cross-section measurements respectively.

png pdf
Table 2:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in same-sign dilepton final state for BDT $<$ 0 region, i.e. nonprompt control region. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 3:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in same-sign dilepton final state for 0 $<$ BDT $<$ 0.6 region where the sign of both leptons are negative. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 4:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in same-sign dilepton final state for BDT $>$ 0.6 region where the sign of both leptons are negative. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 5:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in same-sign dilepton final state for 0 $<$ BDT $<$ 0.6 region where the sign of both leptons are positive. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 6:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in same-sign dilepton final state for BDT $>$ 0.6 region where the sign of both leptons are positive. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 7:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in three-lepton final state in $ {N_\text {bjets}} = $ 0 category. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 8:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in three-lepton final state in $ {N_\text {bjets}} = $ 1 category. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 9:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in three-lepton final state in ${N_\text {bjets}} \geq $ 2 category. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 10:
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in four-lepton final state. The uncertainty represents the total post-fit uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 11:
Summary of expected and observed significance for ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } }$ in the same-sign 2-lepton channel and for ${{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } }$ in the 3-lepton, 4-lepton channels and in the two channels combined.

png pdf
Table 12:
Expected 1$\sigma $ and 2$\sigma $ CL for this $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ measurement, for selected Wilson coefficients.

png pdf
Table 13:
Observed best-fit values determined from this $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ W } } $ and $ {{\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } } \mathrm{ Z } } $ measurement, along with corresponding 1$\sigma $ and 2$\sigma $ CL intervals for selected Wilson coefficients.
Summary
A measurement of top quark pair production in association with a W or a Z boson using 13 TeV data is presented. The analysis is performed in the same-sign dilepton final state for ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ W }} $ and the three- and four-lepton final states for ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ Z }} $, and these three are used to extract the cross sections of ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ W }} $ and ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ Z }} $ production. The same-sign dilepton channel achieves a significance of 5.5 standard deviations, the three-lepton analysis 8.7 standard deviations and the four-lepton analysis 4.6 standard deviatations. From the combination of three- and four-lepton channels a significance of 9.9 standard deviations for ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ Z }} $ is obtained. The measured cross sections are $\sigma({\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ Z }} )= $ 1.00$^{+0.09}_{-0.08}$ (stat.) $^{+0.12}_{-0.10} $ (sys.) pb and $\sigma({\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\mathrm{ W }} )= $ 0.80$^{+0.12}_{-0.11}$ (stat.) $^{+0.13}_{-0.12} $ (sys.) pb, in agreement with the standard model predictions. These results have been used to set constraints on the Wilson coefficients of four operators which would modify $\mathrm{t\overline{t}Z}$ and $\mathrm{t\overline{t}W}$ production.
References
1 B. Mellado Garcia, P. Musella, M. Grazzini, and R. Harlander CERN Report 4: Part I Standard Model Predictions Technical Report LHCHXSWG-DRAFT-INT-2016-008
2 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
3 CMS Collaboration Measurement of associated production of vector bosons and $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV PRL 110 (2013) 172002 CMS-TOP-12-014
1303.3239
4 CMS Collaboration Measurement of top quark-antiquark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV Eur. Phys. J.C 74 (2014), no. 9 CMS-TOP-12-036
1406.7830
5 CMS Collaboration Observation of top quark pairs produced in association with a vector boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JHEP 01 (2016) 096 CMS-TOP-14-021
1510.01131
6 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the $ t\overline{t}W $ and $ t\overline{t}Z $ production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 11 (2015) 172 1509.05276
7 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the $ t\overline{t}Z $ and $ t\overline{t}W $ production cross sections in multilepton final states using 3.2 $ fb^{-1} $ of pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC. 1609.01599
8 J. Alwall et al. MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond JHEP 06 (2011) 128 1106.0522
9 S. Frixione and B. R. Webber Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations JHEP 06 (2002) 29 hep-ph/0204244
10 T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual JHEP 05 (2006) 026 hep-ph/0603175
11 T. Sjostrand et al. An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159--177 1410.3012
12 S. Alioli et al. NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
13 S. Alioli et al. A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX JHEP 06 (2010) 043 1002.2581
14 J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10--15 1007.3492
15 F. Cascioli et al. ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD PLB735 (2014) 311--313 1405.2219
16 F. Caola, K. Melnikov, R. Rantsch, and L. Tancredi QCD corrections to ZZ production in gluon fusion at the LHC PRD92 (2015), no. 9, 094028 1509.06734
17 GEANT4 Collaboration Geant 4 -- a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
18 CMS Collaboration Commissioning of the Particle-Flow Reconstruction in Minimum-Bias and Jet Events from pp Collisions at 7 TeV CDS
19 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet User Manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
20 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Dispelling the $ N^{3} $ myth for the $ k_t $ jet-finder PLB 641 (2006) 57--61 hep-ph/0512210
21 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
22 CMS Collaboration Pileup Removal Algorithms CMS-PAS-JME-14-001 CMS-PAS-JME-14-001
23 CMS Collaboration Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) 04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
24 Particle Data Group Review of particle physics CPC 38 (2014) 090001
25 A. Hoecker, P. Speckmayer, J. Stelzer, J. Therhaag, E. von Toerne, H. Voss Collaboration TMVA 4, Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT, Users Guide Technical Report CERN-OPEN-2007-007
26 CMS Collaboration Search for new physics in same-sign dilepton events in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Eur. Phys. J.C (2016) , [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J.C76,439(2016)] CMS-SUS-15-008
1605.03171
27 J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and R. Rontsch Single top production in association with a Z boson at the LHC PRD 87 (2013) 114006 1302.3856
28 S. Frixione et al. Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons JHEP 06 (2015) 184 1504.03446
29 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
30 CMS Collaboration Collaboration CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period Technical Report CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001, CERN, Geneva
31 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
32 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
33 CMS Collaboration Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) P04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
34 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
35 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011 ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS NOTE-2011/005
36 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics Eur. Phys. J.C 71 (2011) 1554, , [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J.C73,2501(2013)] 1007.1727
37 W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler Effective lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavour conservation Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621--653
38 B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian 1008.4884
39 A. Alloul, B. Fuks, and V. Sanz Phenomenology of the Higgs effective Lagrangian via FeynRules JHEP 2014 (April, 2014) 110 1310.5150
40 J. Ellis, V. Sanz, and T. You Complete Higgs Sector Constraints on Dimension-6 Operators 1404.3667
41 K. Whisnant, J. M. Yang, B.-L. Young, and X. Zhang Dimension-six CP-conserving operators of the third-family quarks and their effects on collider observables 9702305
42 E. Berger, Q. Cao, and I. Low Model independent constraints among the W tb, Z BOSON, and Z BOSON couplings PRD (2009) 1--30 0907.2191v2
43 R. Rontsch and M. Schulze Constraining couplings of the top quarks to the Z boson in ttbar+Z production at the LHC 1404.1005
44 E. Malkawi and C.-P. Yuan Global analysis of the top quark couplings to gauge bosons PRD 50 (Oct, 1994) 4462--4477
45 C. Zhang, N. Greiner, and S. Willenbrock Constraints on nonstandard top quark couplings PRD 86 (July, 2012) 014024
46 A. Tonero and R. Rosenfeld Dipole-induced anomalous top quark couplings at the LHC PRD 90 (July, 2014) 017701 arXiv:1404.2581v2
47 A. Alloul et al. FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology 1310.1921
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN