CMSPASTOP23008  
Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections for single top quark production in association with a W boson in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
27 March 2024  
Abstract: The first measurement of the inclusive and normalised differential cross sections for the production of single top quarks in association with a W boson in protonproton collisions at a centreofmass energy of 13.6 TeV are presented. The data used were recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC during 2022, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 34.7 fb$^{1}$. The analyzed events contain one muon and one electron in the final state. For the inclusive measurement, multivariate discriminants are used exploiting the kinematic properties of the events to separate the signal from the dominant top quark antiquark production background. A cross section of 84.1 $ \pm $ 2.1 (stat) $^{+9.8}_{10.2}$ (syst) $\pm$ 3.3 (lumi) pb is obtained, consistent with the predictions of the standard model. A fiducial region is defined according to the detector acceptance for performing the differential measurements. The resulting differential distributions are unfolded to particle level and show good agreement with the predictions at nexttoleading order in perturbative quantum chromodynamics.  
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Leadingorder Feynman diagrams for single top quark production in the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ mode. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Leadingorder Feynman diagrams for single top quark production in the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ mode. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Leadingorder Feynman diagrams for single top quark production in the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ mode. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ single top quark production at NLO that are removed from the signal definition in the DR scheme. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ single top quark production at NLO that are removed from the signal definition in the DR scheme. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ single top quark production at NLO that are removed from the signal definition in the DR scheme. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Feynman diagrams for $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ single top quark production at NLO that are removed from the signal definition in the DR scheme. The chargeconjugate modes are implicitly included. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Left: the number of events observed in data (points) and predicted from simulation (filled histograms) in the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\mp $ sample as a function of the number of jets and btagged jets before the maximum likelihood fit. Right: the number of loose jets per event in the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\mp $ sample from the 1j1b region before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data. The hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the sum of the expected yields. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Left: the number of events observed in data (points) and predicted from simulation (filled histograms) in the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\mp $ sample as a function of the number of jets and btagged jets before the maximum likelihood fit. Right: the number of loose jets per event in the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\mp $ sample from the 1j1b region before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data. The hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the sum of the expected yields. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Left: the number of events observed in data (points) and predicted from simulation (filled histograms) in the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\mp $ sample as a function of the number of jets and btagged jets before the maximum likelihood fit. Right: the number of loose jets per event in the $ \mathrm{e}^\pm\mu^\mp $ sample from the 1j1b region before the maximum likelihood fit. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data. The hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the sum of the expected yields. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the four most discriminating variables used for the RF training of the 1j1b region: (upper left) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading loose jet; (upper right) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton; (lower left) the magnitude of the transverse momentum of the dilepton + jet system; and (lower right) the invariant mass of the dilepton system. The last bin of each distribution includes the overflow events, except for the leading loose jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distribution, which is only defined up to 30 GeV. The first bin in the upper left plot contains events with 0 loose jets. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the four most discriminating variables used for the RF training of the 1j1b region: (upper left) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading loose jet; (upper right) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton; (lower left) the magnitude of the transverse momentum of the dilepton + jet system; and (lower right) the invariant mass of the dilepton system. The last bin of each distribution includes the overflow events, except for the leading loose jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distribution, which is only defined up to 30 GeV. The first bin in the upper left plot contains events with 0 loose jets. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the four most discriminating variables used for the RF training of the 1j1b region: (upper left) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading loose jet; (upper right) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton; (lower left) the magnitude of the transverse momentum of the dilepton + jet system; and (lower right) the invariant mass of the dilepton system. The last bin of each distribution includes the overflow events, except for the leading loose jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distribution, which is only defined up to 30 GeV. The first bin in the upper left plot contains events with 0 loose jets. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the four most discriminating variables used for the RF training of the 1j1b region: (upper left) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading loose jet; (upper right) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton; (lower left) the magnitude of the transverse momentum of the dilepton + jet system; and (lower right) the invariant mass of the dilepton system. The last bin of each distribution includes the overflow events, except for the leading loose jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distribution, which is only defined up to 30 GeV. The first bin in the upper left plot contains events with 0 loose jets. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the four most discriminating variables used for the RF training of the 1j1b region: (upper left) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading loose jet; (upper right) the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton; (lower left) the magnitude of the transverse momentum of the dilepton + jet system; and (lower right) the invariant mass of the dilepton system. The last bin of each distribution includes the overflow events, except for the leading loose jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distribution, which is only defined up to 30 GeV. The first bin in the upper left plot contains events with 0 loose jets. The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band represents the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC predictions. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 5c:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 5d:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 5e:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 5f:
The measured distributions from data (points) and MC simulations (filled histograms) before the maximum likelihood fit of the six observables used to measure the $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ differential cross sections. Signal events in the 1j1b region with 0 loose jets (0 $ \mathrm{j}_{\text{l}} $) are selected. The last bin of each distribution contains the overflow events. The vertical bars on the data show the statistical uncertainty. The hatched band displays the sum of the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the MC predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC expectations. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
The distributions of the RF outputs for events in the 1j1b (upper left) and 2j1b (upper right) regions, and the subleading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the 2j2b region (lower). The data (points) and the MC predictions (filled histograms) after the maximum likelihood fit are shown. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band the total uncertainty in the MC prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC (points) predictions after the fit, with the bands giving the corresponding uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
The distributions of the RF outputs for events in the 1j1b (upper left) and 2j1b (upper right) regions, and the subleading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the 2j2b region (lower). The data (points) and the MC predictions (filled histograms) after the maximum likelihood fit are shown. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band the total uncertainty in the MC prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC (points) predictions after the fit, with the bands giving the corresponding uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
The distributions of the RF outputs for events in the 1j1b (upper left) and 2j1b (upper right) regions, and the subleading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the 2j2b region (lower). The data (points) and the MC predictions (filled histograms) after the maximum likelihood fit are shown. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band the total uncertainty in the MC prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC (points) predictions after the fit, with the bands giving the corresponding uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
The distributions of the RF outputs for events in the 1j1b (upper left) and 2j1b (upper right) regions, and the subleading jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the 2j2b region (lower). The data (points) and the MC predictions (filled histograms) after the maximum likelihood fit are shown. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, and the hatched band the total uncertainty in the MC prediction. The lower panels display the ratio of the data to the sum of the MC (points) predictions after the fit, with the bands giving the corresponding uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
The $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ cross section as a function of $ \sqrt{s} $, as obtained in this analysis (red filled circle) and in previous measurements by the CMS experiment [22,4,28,29 ] (black markers), with vertical bars on the markers indicating the total uncertainty in the measurements. Points corresponding to measurements at the same $ \sqrt{s} $ are horizontally shifted for better visibility. The SM prediction [15,16,17] is shown with a black line and blue uncertainty bands. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
The twenty largest impacts $ \Delta\hat{\mu} $ (right column) and fit constraints $ (\hat{\theta}\theta_0)/\Delta\theta $ (middle column) of the nuisance parameters listed in the left column from the ML fit used to determine the inclusive $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ cross section. The horizontal bars on the fit constraints show the ratio of the uncertainties of the fit result to the previous ones, effectively giving the constraint on the nuisance parameter. If the period is specified alongside the uncertainty name, it indicates that this is the component of the uncertainty uncorrelated by periods. There are two possible periods, before (2022PreEE) and after (2022PostEE) ECAL water leak. The JES uncertainties are divided into several sources, where ``JES  absolute'' groups contributions from scale corrections in the barrel, pileup corrections, and initial and finalstate radiation corrections; ``JES  relative sample'' encodes the uncertainty in the $ \eta $dependent calibration of the jets; ``JES  BBEC1'' refers to pileup removal in the barrel (BB) and the first part of the endcaps (1.3 $ < \eta < $ 2.5; EC1) and also a contribution from scale corrections in the barrel; and ``JES  flavour QCD'' comes from the corrections applied to correct the different detector response to gluon and quark jets. This last uncertainty is split by jet flavour in three components. These components are: light for the gluon and up, down and strange quark jets, charm for the c jets and bottom for the b jets. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 9c:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 9d:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 9e:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 9f:
Normalised fiducial differential $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ production cross section as functions of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading lepton (upper left), $ p_\mathrm{z}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the jet (middle left), $ m(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j) $ (middle right), $ \Delta\varphi(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp) $ (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{e}^\pm, \mu^\mp, j, {\vec p}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\kern1pt\text{miss}}) $ (lower right). The vertical bars on the points give the statistical uncertainty in the data, the horizontal bars show the bin width. Predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS, POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR, MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor are also shown. The grey band represents the statistical uncertainty and the orange band the total uncertainty. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the data is shown. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Selection requirements for particlelevel objects. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Definition of the fiducial region. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
The number of observed and MC predicted events after the fit in the 1j1b, 2j1b, and 2j2b regions. The statistical uncertainties in the data and the total uncertainties in the predictions are given. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
The $ p $values from the goodnessoffit tests comparing the six differential cross section measurements with the predictions from POWHEG (PH) + PYTHIA8 (P8) DR and DS and POWHEG + HERWIG 7 (H7) DR. The complete covariance matrix from the results and the statistical uncertainties in the predictions are taken into account. 
png pdf 
Table 5:
The $ p $values from the goodnessoffit tests comparing the six differential cross section measurements with the predictions from MadGraph5_aMC@NLO (aMC) + PYTHIA8 DR, DR2, DS, and DS with a dynamic factor. The complete covariance matrix from the results and the statistical uncertainties in the predictions are taken into account. 
Summary 
Inclusive and normalised differential cross sections for the production of a top quark in association with a W boson are measured in protonproton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}=$ 13.6 TeV. The selected data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 34.7 fb$^{1}$, recorded by the CMS detector, contain events with an electron and a muon of opposite charge. For the inclusive measurement, the events have been categorised depending on the number of jets and jets originating from the fragmentation of bottom quarks. The signal is measured using a maximum likelihood fit to the distribution of random forest discriminants in two of the categories, and to the transverse momentum ($ p_{\mathrm{T}} $) distribution of the secondhighest$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet in a third category. The measured inclusive cross section is 84.1 $ \pm $ 2.1 (stat) $^{+9.8}_{10.2} $ (syst) $ \pm $ 3.3 (lumi) pb, with a total relative uncertainty of about 13%. This measurement is in agreement with the latest predictions and measurements. The differential cross section measurements are performed as a function of six kinematical observables of the events in the fiducial phase space corresponding to the selection criteria. The results have relative uncertainties in the range of 3040%, depending on the measured observable. The uncertainties are overall statistically dominated. There is good agreement between the measurements and the predictions from the different event generators. The different approaches used to simulate $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $ events give similar values in all distributions, which points to small effects of $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{W} $/ $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ interference on these distributions in the defined fiducial region. 
References  
1  S. Frixione et al.  Singletop hadroproduction in association with a W boson  JHEP 07 (2008) 029  0805.3067 
2  A. S. Belyaev, E. E. Boos, and L. V. Dudko  Single top quark at future hadron colliders: Complete signal and background study  PRD 59 (1999) 075001  hepph/9806332 
3  C. D. White, S. Frixione, E. Laenen, and F. Maltoni  Isolating $ {\mathrm{W}\mathrm{t}} $ production at the LHC  JHEP 11 (2009) 074  0908.0631 
4  CMS Collaboration  Observation of the associated production of a single top quark and a W boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PRL 112 (2014) 231802  CMSTOP12040 1401.2942 
5  W. Fang, B. Clerbaux, A. Giammanco, and R. Goldouzian  Modelindependent constraints on the CKM matrix elements $ V_{tb} $, $ V_{ts} $ and $ V_{td} $  JHEP 03 (2019) 022  1807.07319 
6  R. Rahaman and A. Subba  Probing top quark anomalous moments in W boson associated single top quark production at the LHC using polarization and spin correlation  PRD 108 (2023) 055027  2306.06889 
7  T. M. P. Tait and C.P. Yuan  Single top quark production as a window to physics beyond the standard model  PRD 63 (2000) 014018  hepph/0007298 
8  Q.H. Cao, J. Wudka, and C.P. Yuan  Search for new physics via single top production at the LHC  PLB 658 (2007) 50  0704.2809 
9  V. Barger, M. McCaskey, and G. Shaughnessy  Single top and Higgs associated production at the LHC  PRD 81 (2010) 034020  0911.1556 
10  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for dark matter produced in association with bottom or top quarks in $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 78 (2018) 18  1710.11412 
11  CMS Collaboration  Search for dark matter produced in association with a single top quark or a top quark pair in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 03 (2019) 141  CMSEXO18010 1901.01553 
12  D. Pinna, A. Zucchetta, M. R. Buckley, and F. Canelli  Single top quarks and dark matter  PRD 96 (2017) 035031  1701.05195 
13  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13.6 TeV  JHEP 08 (2023) 204  CMSTOP22012 2303.10680 
14  ATLAS Collaboration  Inclusive and differential crosssections for dilepton $ t\overline{t} $ production measured in $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 07 (2023) 141  2303.15340 
15  N. Kidonakis and N. Yamanaka  Higherorder corrections for $ tW $ production at highenergy hadron colliders  JHEP 05 (2021) 278  2102.11300 
16  N. Kidonakis  Softgluon corrections for $ tW $ production at N$ ^3 $LO  PRD 96 (2017) 034014  1612.06426 
17  N. Kidonakis  Twoloop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a $ W^ $ or $ H^ $  PRD 82 (2010) 054018  1005.4451 
18  PDF4LHC Working Group Collaboration  The PDF4LHC21 combination of global PDF fits for the LHC Run III  JPG 49 (2022) 080501  2203.05506 
19  D0 Collaboration  Observation of single top quark production  PRL 103 (2009) 092001  0903.0850 
20  CDF Collaboration  First observation of electroweak single top quark production  PRL 103 (2009) 092002  0903.0885 
21  ATLAS Collaboration  Evidence for the associated production of a W boson and a top quark in ATLAS at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  PLB 716 (2012) 142  1205.5764 
22  CMS Collaboration  Evidence for associated production of a single top quark and W boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  PRL 110 (2013) 022003  CMSTOP11022 1209.3489 
23  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the production crosssection of a single top quark in association with a W boson at 8 TeV with the ATLAS experiment  JHEP 01 (2016) 064  1510.03752 
24  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the production cross section for single top quarks in association with W bosons in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 10 (2018) 117  CMSTOP17018 1805.07399 
25  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the crosssection for producing a W boson in association with a single top quark in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with ATLAS  JHEP 01 (2018) 063  1612.07231 
26  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of differential crosssections of a single top quark produced in association with a W boson at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with ATLAS  EPJC 78 (2018) 186  1712.01602 
27  ATLAS Collaboration  Probing the quantum interference between singly and doubly resonant topquark production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PRL 121 (2018) 152002  1806.04667 
28  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of inclusive and differential cross sections for single top quark production in association with a W boson in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2023) 046  CMSTOP21010 2208.00924 
29  CMS Collaboration  Observation of tW production in the singlelepton channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 11 (2021) 111  CMSTOP20002 2109.01706 
30  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of single topquark production in association with a $ W $ boson in the singlelepton channel at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 81 (2021) 720  2007.01554 
31  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
32  CMS Collaboration  Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3  Accepted by JINST  CMSPRF21001 2309.05466 
33  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS Level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
34  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
35  CMS Collaboration  CMS technical design report for the Phase 1 upgrade of the hadron calorimeter  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2012015, CMSTDR010, 2012 CDS 

36  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS phase1 pixel detector with Run 3 data  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2022047, 2022 CDS 

37  CMS Collaboration  Commissioning CMS online reconstruction with GPUs  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2023004, 2023 CDS 

38  CMS BRIL Collaboration  The Pixel Luminosity Telescope: a detector for luminosity measurement at CMS using silicon pixel sensors  EPJC 83 (2023) 673  2206.08870 
39  N. Karunarathna, for the CMS Collaboration  Run 3 luminosity measurements with the Pixel Luminosity Telescope  in Proc. 41st Int. Conf. on High Energy Phys. (ICHEP ): Bologna, Italy, 2022 [PoS (ICHEP) 936] 

40  J. Wańczyk, for the CMS Collaboration  Upgraded CMS Fast Beam Condition Monitor for LHC Run 3 online luminosity and beaminduced background measurements  in Proc. 11th Int. Beam Instrumentation Conf. (IBIC ): Krakow, Poland, 2022 [JACoW (IBIC) 540] 

41  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
42  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the PhaseII upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

43  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
44  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FASTJET user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
45  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
46  D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran  Pileup per particle identification  JHEP 10 (2014) 059  1407.6013 
47  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
48  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution measurements using prompt Run 3 data collected by CMS in the first months of 2022 at 13.6 TeV  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2022054, 2022 CDS 

49  CMS Collaboration  Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMSPASJME16003 
CMSPASJME16003 
50  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG \textscbox  JHEP 06 (2010) 043  1002.2581 
51  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
52  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
53  T. M. P. Tait  The $ {\mathrm{t}\mathrm{W^}} $ mode of single top production  PRD 61 (1999) 034001  hepph/9909352 
54  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 
55  F. Demartin et al.  $ {\mathrm{t}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{H}} $ associated production at the LHC  EPJC 77 (2017) 34  1607.05862 
56  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
57  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
58  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA 8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
59  M. Bahr et al.  HERWIG++ physics and manual  EPJC 58 (2008) 639  0803.0883 
60  J. Bellm et al.  HERWIG 7.0/ HERWIG++ 3.0 release note  EPJC 76 (2016) 196  1512.01178 
61  J. Bellm et al.  HERWIG 7.1 release note  1705.06919  
62  CMS Collaboration  Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 81 (2021) 312  CMSGEN19001 2011.03422 
63  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
64  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
65  Y. Li and F. Petriello  Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in the framework of the FEWZ simulation code  PRD 86 (2012) 094034  1208.5967 
66  J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams  Vector boson pair production at the LHC  JHEP 07 (2011) 018  1105.0020 
67  M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov  Total topquark pairproduction cross section at hadron colliders through $ {O(\alpha_\mathrm{S}^4)} $  PRL 110 (2013) 252004  1303.6254 
68  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  \textsctop++: A program for the calculation of the toppair crosssection at hadron colliders  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930  1112.5675 
69  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inelastic protonproton cross section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2018) 161  CMSFSQ15005 1802.02613 
70  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
71  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P06015  CMSMUO16001 1804.04528 
72  H. Qu, C. Li, and S. Qian  Particle Transformer for Jet Tagging  2202.03772  
73  CMS Collaboration  Adversarial training for btagging algorithms in CMS  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2022049, 2022 CDS 

74  CMS Collaboration  Transformer models for heavy flavor jet identification  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2022050, 2022 CDS 

75  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 1712.07158 
76  E. Bols et al.  Jet flavour classification using DeepJet  JINST 15 (2020) P12012  2008.10519 
77  A. Prinzie and D. Van den Poel  Random multiclass classification: Generalizing random forests to random MNL and random NB  in Proc. 18th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA ): Regensburg, Germany, 2007 link 

78  L. Breiman, J. Friedman, C. J. Stone, and R. A. Olshen  Classification and regression trees  Chapman and Hall, ISBN 04120481418, 1984  
79  F. Pedregosa et al.  Scikitlearn: Machine learning in Python  Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2825  
80  R. Cousins  Generalization of chisquare goodnessoffit test for binned data using saturated models, with application to histograms  link  
81  R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston  Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples  Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219  
82  J. S. Conway  Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra  in Proc. 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT ): Geneva, 2011 link 
1103.0354 
83  L. Moneta et al.  The RooStats project  in Proc. 13th Int. Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Phys. Research (ACAT ): Jaipur, India, 2010 [PoS (ACAT) 057] 
1009.1003 
84  S. Schmitt  TUnfold: an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics  JINST 7 (2012) T10003  1205.6201 
85  CMS Collaboration  Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level  Technical Report CMSNOTE2017004, 2017 CDS 

86  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The Catchment Area of Jets  JHEP 04 (2008) 005  0802.1188 
87  CMS Collaboration  Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JINST 10 (2015) P08010  CMSEGM14001 1502.02702 
88  CMS Collaboration  Description and performance of track and primaryvertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker  JINST 9 (2014) P10009  CMSTRK11001 1405.6569 
89  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 01 (2011) 080  CMSEWK10002 1012.2466 
90  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the inelastic protonproton cross section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PRL 117 (2016) 182002  1606.02625 
91  CMS Collaboration  Luminosity measurement in protonproton collisions at 13.6 TeV in 2022 at CMS  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024 CMSPASLUM22001 
CMSPASLUM22001 
92  P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo  Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune  EPJC 74 (2014) 3024  1404.5630 
93  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  Improved Common $ t\bar{t} $ MonteCarlo Settings for ATLAS and CMS  Technical Report CMSNOTE2023004, CERNCMSNOTE2023004, ATLPHYSPUB2023016, 2023  
94  S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjöstrand  Effects of color reconnection on $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ final states at the LHC  JHEP 11 (2014) 043  1407.6653 
95  CMS Collaboration  CMS pythia 8 colour reconnection tunes based on underlyingevent data  EPJC 83 (2023) 587  CMSGEN17002 2205.02905 
96  CMS Collaboration  Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2016 CMSPASTOP16021 
CMSPASTOP16021 
97  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass using protonproton data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  PRD 93 (2016) 072004  CMSTOP14022 1509.04044 
98  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV  PRD 95 (2017) 092001  CMSTOP16008 1610.04191 
99  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 75 (2015) 542  CMSTOP12028 1505.04480 
100  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section in the alljets final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 76 (2016) 128  CMSTOP14018 1509.06076 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 