CMSSMP20003 ; CERNEP2022053  
Measurement of the mass dependence of the transverse momentum of lepton pairs in DrellYan production in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
10 May 2022  
Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 628  
Abstract: The double differential cross sections of the DrellYan lepton pair ($ \ell^+\ell^ $, dielectron or dimuon) production are measured as functions of the invariant mass $ m_{\ell\ell} $, transverse momentum $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $, and $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta} $. The $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta} $ observable, derived from angular measurements of the leptons and highly correlated with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $, is used to probe the low$ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ region in a complementary way. Dilepton masses up to 1 TeV are investigated. Additionally, a measurement is performed requiring at least one jet in the final state. To benefit from partial cancellation of the systematic uncertainty, the ratios of the differential cross sections for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges to those in the Z mass peak interval are presented. The collected data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$ ^{1} $ of protonproton collisions recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV. Measurements are compared with predictions based on perturbative quantum chromodynamics, including softgluon resummation.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2205.04897 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Additional resources can be found there. 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the muon (left) and electron channels (right). Each plot also presents in the lower part a ratio of simulation over data. Only statistical uncertainties are shown as error bars on the data points, whereas the ratio presents the statistical uncertainty in the simulation and the data. The plots show the number of events without normalization to the bin width. The different background contributions are discussed in the text. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the muon (left) and electron channels (right). Each plot also presents in the lower part a ratio of simulation over data. Only statistical uncertainties are shown as error bars on the data points, whereas the ratio presents the statistical uncertainty in the simulation and the data. The plots show the number of events without normalization to the bin width. The different background contributions are discussed in the text. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the muon (left) and electron channels (right). Each plot also presents in the lower part a ratio of simulation over data. Only statistical uncertainties are shown as error bars on the data points, whereas the ratio presents the statistical uncertainty in the simulation and the data. The plots show the number of events without normalization to the bin width. The different background contributions are discussed in the text. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of the dilepton $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in five ranges of invariant mass: 50 to 76 GeV (upper left), 76 to 106 GeV (upper right), 106 to 170 GeV (middle left), 170 to 350 GeV (middle right), and 350 to 1000 GeV (lower). More details are given in Fig. 1. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of the dilepton $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in five ranges of invariant mass: 50 to 76 GeV (upper left), 76 to 106 GeV (upper right), 106 to 170 GeV (middle left), 170 to 350 GeV (middle right), and 350 to 1000 GeV (lower). More details are given in Fig. 1. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of the dilepton $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in five ranges of invariant mass: 50 to 76 GeV (upper left), 76 to 106 GeV (upper right), 106 to 170 GeV (middle left), 170 to 350 GeV (middle right), and 350 to 1000 GeV (lower). More details are given in Fig. 1. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of the dilepton $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in five ranges of invariant mass: 50 to 76 GeV (upper left), 76 to 106 GeV (upper right), 106 to 170 GeV (middle left), 170 to 350 GeV (middle right), and 350 to 1000 GeV (lower). More details are given in Fig. 1. 
png pdf 
Figure 2d:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of the dilepton $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in five ranges of invariant mass: 50 to 76 GeV (upper left), 76 to 106 GeV (upper right), 106 to 170 GeV (middle left), 170 to 350 GeV (middle right), and 350 to 1000 GeV (lower). More details are given in Fig. 1. 
png pdf 
Figure 2e:
Distributions of events passing the selection requirements in the electron channel as a function of the dilepton $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in five ranges of invariant mass: 50 to 76 GeV (upper left), 76 to 106 GeV (upper right), 106 to 170 GeV (middle left), 170 to 350 GeV (middle right), and 350 to 1000 GeV (lower). More details are given in Fig. 1. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 3d:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 3e:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross section ratios in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross section ratios in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross section ratios in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross section ratios in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Estimates of the uncertainties in inclusive differential cross section ratios in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The black line is the quadratic sum of the colored lines. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The error bars on data points (black dots) correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The error bars on data points (black dots) correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The error bars on data points (black dots) correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). 
png pdf 
Figure 5c:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The error bars on data points (black dots) correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). 
png pdf 
Figure 5d:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The error bars on data points (black dots) correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). 
png pdf 
Figure 5e:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The error bars on data points (black dots) correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands around the data points correspond to the total experimental uncertainty. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Comparison to Monte Carlo predictions based on a matrix element with parton shower merging. The ratio of MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (left) and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light color band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the simulation and the dark color band includes the scale uncertainty. The largest bands include PDF and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ uncertainties, added in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Comparison to Monte Carlo predictions based on a matrix element with parton shower merging. The ratio of MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (left) and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light color band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the simulation and the dark color band includes the scale uncertainty. The largest bands include PDF and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ uncertainties, added in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Comparison to Monte Carlo predictions based on a matrix element with parton shower merging. The ratio of MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (left) and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light color band corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the simulation and the dark color band includes the scale uncertainty. The largest bands include PDF and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ uncertainties, added in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Comparison to TMD based predictions. The ratio of MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (left) and ARTEMIDE (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light (dark) green band around ARTEMIDE predictions represent the nonperturbative (QCD scale) uncertainties, the darker green representing the QED FSR correction uncertainties. The range of invalidity is shaded with a gray band. The light color band around CASCADE prediction corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the simulation and the dark color band includes the scale uncertainty. The largest bands include TMD uncertainty, added in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
Comparison to TMD based predictions. The ratio of MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (left) and ARTEMIDE (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light (dark) green band around ARTEMIDE predictions represent the nonperturbative (QCD scale) uncertainties, the darker green representing the QED FSR correction uncertainties. The range of invalidity is shaded with a gray band. The light color band around CASCADE prediction corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the simulation and the dark color band includes the scale uncertainty. The largest bands include TMD uncertainty, added in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
Comparison to TMD based predictions. The ratio of MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (left) and ARTEMIDE (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light (dark) green band around ARTEMIDE predictions represent the nonperturbative (QCD scale) uncertainties, the darker green representing the QED FSR correction uncertainties. The range of invalidity is shaded with a gray band. The light color band around CASCADE prediction corresponds to the statistical uncertainty of the simulation and the dark color band includes the scale uncertainty. The largest bands include TMD uncertainty, added in quadrature. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Comparison to resummation based predictions. The ratio of GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light color bands around the predictions represents the statistical uncertainties and the middle color bands represents the scale uncertainties. The dark outer bands of GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ prediction represent the resummation uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 8a:
Comparison to resummation based predictions. The ratio of GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light color bands around the predictions represents the statistical uncertainties and the middle color bands represents the scale uncertainties. The dark outer bands of GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ prediction represent the resummation uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 8b:
Comparison to resummation based predictions. The ratio of GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions to the measured differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ are presented for various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty of the measurement and the shaded bands to the total experimental uncertainty. The light color bands around the predictions represents the statistical uncertainties and the middle color bands represents the scale uncertainties. The dark outer bands of GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ prediction represent the resummation uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 9c:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 9d:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Comparison to Monte Carlo predictions based on a matrix element with parton shower merging. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (left) and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 10a:
Comparison to Monte Carlo predictions based on a matrix element with parton shower merging. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (left) and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 10b:
Comparison to Monte Carlo predictions based on a matrix element with parton shower merging. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (left) and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Comparison to TMD based predictions. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (left) and ARTEMIDE (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 7 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Comparison to TMD based predictions. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (left) and ARTEMIDE (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 7 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Comparison to TMD based predictions. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (left) and ARTEMIDE (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 7 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Comparison to resummation based predictions. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Comparison to resummation based predictions. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Comparison to resummation based predictions. The distributions show the ratio of differential cross sections as a function of $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for a given $ m_{\ell\ell} $ range to the cross section at the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The predictions are GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 13a:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 13b:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 13c:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 13d:
Differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 14a:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 14b:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 14c:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 15a:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 15b:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various invariant mass ranges for the one or more jets case. The measurement is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 16a:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 16b:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 16c:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), and 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 17a:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 17b:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 17c:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (1 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 18:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 18a:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 18b:
Comparison of the ratios of differential cross sections in $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ for one or more jets in various invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. The measured ratio is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 19:
Differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 19a:
Differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 19b:
Differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 19c:
Differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 19d:
Differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 19e:
Differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ in various invariant mass ranges: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle left), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (middle right), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 20:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 20a:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 20b:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 20c:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 21:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 21a:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 21b:
Comparison of the differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ to predictions in various $ m_{\ell\ell} $ ranges. The measurement is compared with GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right) predictions. Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 22:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 22a:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 22b:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 22c:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 22d:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant mass ranges with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $: 50 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 76\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper left), 106 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 170\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (upper right), 170 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 350\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower left), and 350 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 1000\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $ (lower right). The measurement is compared with MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (blue dots), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (green diamonds) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO)+ PB (CASCADE) (red triangles). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 5 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 23:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 23a:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 23b:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 23c:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from MG5\_aMC (0, 1, and 2 jets at NLO) + PYTHIA8 (upper left), \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ (upper right) and MG5\_aMC (0 jet at NLO) + PB (CASCADE) (lower). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 6 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 24:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 24a:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
png pdf 
Figure 24b:
Ratios of differential cross sections in $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta}(\ell\ell) $ for invariant $ m_{\ell\ell} $ with respect to the peak region 76 $ < m_{\ell\ell} < 106\,\text{Ge\hspace{.08em}V} $. Compared to model predictions from GENEVA$ \tau $ (left) and GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $ (right). Details on the presentation of the results are given in Fig. 8 caption. 
Summary 
Measurements of differential DrellYan cross sections in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in the dielectron and dimuon final states are presented, using data collected with the CMS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$ ^{1} $. The measurements are corrected for detector effects and the two leptonic channels are combined. Differential cross sections in the dilepton transverse momentum, $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $, and in the lepton angular variable $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta} $ are measured for different values of the dilepton mass, $ m_{\ell\ell} $, between 50 GeV and 1 TeV. To highlight the evolution with the dilepton mass scale, ratios of these distributions for various masses are presented. In addition, dilepton transverse momentum distributions are shown in the presence of at least one jet within the detector acceptance. The rising behaviour of the DrellYan inclusive cross section at small $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ is attributed to soft QCD radiations, whereas the tail at large $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ is only expected to be well described by models relying on higherorder matrix element calculations. Therefore, this variable provides a good sensitivity to initialstate QCD radiations and can be compared with different predictions relying on matrix element calculations at different orders and using different methods to resum the initialstate soft QCD radiations. The measurements show that the peak in the $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ distribution, located around 5 GeV, is not significantly modified by changing the $ m_{\ell\ell} $ value in the covered range. However, for higher values of $ m_{\ell\ell} $ above the peak, the $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ distributions fall less steeply. The $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta} $ variable, highly correlated with $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $, offers a complementary access to the underlying QCD dynamics. Since it is based only on angle measurements of the finalstate charged leptons, it offers, a priori, measurements with greater accuracy. However, these measurements demonstrate that the $ \varphi^{*}_{\eta} $ distributions discriminate between the models less than the $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ distributions, since they wash out the peak structure of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ distributions, which reflect the initialstate QCD radiation effects in a more detailed way. \begintolerant 5000 This publication presents comparisons of the measurements to six predictions using different treatments of soft initialstate QCD radiations. Two of them, MG5\_aMC + PYTHIA 8 and \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $, are based on a matrix element calculation merged with parton showers. Two others, ARTEMIDE and CASCADE use transverse momentum dependent parton distributions (TMD). Finally, GENEVA combines a higherorder resummation with a DrellYan calculation at nexttonexttoleading order (NNLO), in two different ways. One carries out the resummation at nexttonexttoleading logarithm in the 0jettiness variable $ \tau_0 $, the other at $ \mathrm{N^3LL} $ in the $ q_\mathrm{T} $ variable. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 The comparison of the measurement with the MG5\_aMC + PYTHIA 8 Monte Carlo predictions using matrix element calculations including $ \mathrm{Z} + 0,1, $ 2 partons at nexttoleading order (NLO) merged with a parton shower, shows generally good agreement, except at $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ values below 10 GeV both for the inclusive and one jet cross sections. This disagreement is enhanced for masses away from the Z mass peak and is more pronounced for the higher dilepton masses, reaching 20% for the highest mass bin. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 The \textsc{MiNNLO$ _\mathrm{PS} $ prediction provides the best global description of the data among the predictions presented in this paper, both for the inclusive and the one jet cross sections. This approach, based on NNLO matrix element and PYTHIA8 parton shower and MPI, describes well the large $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ cross sections and ratios, except for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ values above 400 GeV for dilepton masses around the Z mass peak. A good description of the medium and low $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ cross sections is obtained using a modified primordial $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ parameter of the CP5 parton shower tune. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 MG5\_aMC + PB(CASCADE) predictions are based on Parton Branching TMDs obtained only from a fit to electronproton deep inelastic scattering measurements performed at HERA. These TMDs are merged with NLO matrix element calculations. Low $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ values are globally well described but with too low cross sections at medium $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ values. This discrepancy increases with increasing $ m_{\ell\ell} $ in a way similar to the MG5\_aMC + PYTHIA 8 predictions. The high part of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ distribution is not described by CASCADE due to missing higher fixedorder terms. The model can not describe the low $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ region of the cross section in the presence of one jet due to the missing double parton scattering contributions. The recent inclusion of multijet merging allows a larger $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $\ region to be described as well. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 ARTEMIDE provides predictions based on TMDs extracted from previous measurements including the DrellYan transverse momentum cross section at the LHC at the Z mass peak. By construction, the validity of ARTEMIDE predictions are limited to the range $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) < 0.2 \ m_{\ell\ell} $. In that range, they describe well the present measurements up to the highest dilepton masses. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 The GENEVA prediction, combining resummation in the 0jettiness variable $ \tau_0 $ (GENEVA$ \tau $) and NNLO matrix element does not describe the measurement well for $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ values below 40 GeV. For the high $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ region the inclusion of NNLO in the matrix element provides a good description of the measured cross section. The recent GENEVA prediction (GENEVA$ q_\mathrm{T} $), using a $ q_\mathrm{T} $ resummation, provides a much better description of the measured inclusive cross sections, describing very well the data in the full $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ range except for middle $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ values in the lowest mass bin. Both GENEVA approaches predict too hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}(\ell\ell) $ spectra for the one jet cross sections. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 The ratio distributions presented in this paper confirm most of the observations based on the comparison between the measurement and the predictions at the cross section level. The observed scale dependence is well described by the different models. Furthermore the partial cancellation of the uncertainties in the cross section ratios allows a higher level of precision to be reached for both the measurement and the predictions. \endtolerant \begintolerant 5000 The present analysis shows the relevance of measuring the DrellYan cross section in a wide range in dilepton masses to probe the interplay between the transverse momentum and the mass scales of the process. Important theoretical efforts have been made during the last decade to improve the detailed description of high energy processes involving multiple scales and partonic final states. The understanding of the DrellYan process directly benefited from these developments. The present paper shows that they individually describe the measurements well in the regions they were designed for. Nevertheless, no model is able to reproduce all dependencies over the complete covered range. Further progress might come from combining these approaches. \endtolerant 
Additional Resources 
Compressed tarball (113M) including measured differential cross sections as a function of ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$ and ${\varphi^{*}_{\eta}}$ in five ${m_{{\ell} {\ell} }}$ mass intervals, along with corresponding covariance matrices.  
Below are these results, in yaml format, as described in the HepData submission file. In all measurements, the values are normalized by the bin width.  
Dilepton
transverse momentum, ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$.
 
Dilepton
transverse momentum, ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$. At least
one jet is required.
 
${\varphi^{*}_{\eta}}$ observable.
 
Dilepton
transverse momentum, ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$. Normalised
to the [76106] GeV mass interval.
 
Dilepton
transverse momentum, ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$. Normalised
to the [76106] GeV mass interval. At least one jet is required.
 
${\varphi^{*}_{\eta}}$ observable. Normalised
to the [76106] GeV mass interval.
 
Response matrices for ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$.
 
Response matrices for ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\ell\ell)$. At
least one jet is required.
 
Response matrices for ${\varphi^{*}_{\eta}}$.
 
License ccby4.0. The content of these files can be shared and adapted but you must give appropriate credit and cannot restrict access to others. 
References  
1  S. D. Drell and T.M. Yan  Massive lepton pair production in hadronhadron collisions at high energies  PRL 25 (1970) 316  
2  Y. L. Dokshitzer, D. Diakonov, and S. I. Troyan  On the transverse momentum distribution of massive lepton pairs  PLB 79 (1978) 269  
3  J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman  Transverse momentum distribution in DrellYan pair and W and Z boson production  NPB 250 (1985) 199  
4  R. Hamberg, W. L. van Neerven, and T. Matsuura  A complete calculation of the order $ \alpha_s^2 $ correction to the DrellYan $ K $factor  NPB 359 (1991) 343  
5  S. Catani et al.  Vector boson production at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO  PRL 103 (2009) 082001  0903.2120 
6  S. Catani and M. Grazzini  An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to Higgs boson production at the LHC  PRL 98 (2007) 222002  hepph/0703012 
7  K. Melnikov and F. Petriello  Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through $ \mathcal O(\alpha_s^2) $  PRD 74 (2006) 114017  hepph/0609070 
8  A. Bacchetta et al.  Extraction of partonic transverse momentum distributions from semiinclusive deepinelastic scattering, DrellYan and Zboson production  [Erratum: JHEP 06, 051 ()], 2017 JHEP 06 (2017) 081 
1703.10157 
9  A. Bacchetta et al.  Transversemomentumdependent parton distributions up to N$ ^{3} $LL from DrellYan data  JHEP 07 (2020) 117  1912.07550 
10  S. Camarda et al.  DYTurbo: Fast predictions for DrellYan processes  [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 80, 440 ()], 2020 EPJC 80 (2020) 251 
1910.07049 
11  W. Bizo \'n et al.  Fiducial distributions in Higgs and DrellYan production at N$ ^{3} $LL+NNLO  JHEP 12 (2018) 132  1805.05916 
12  M. A. Ebert, J. K. L. Michel, I. W. Stewart, and F. J. Tackmann  DrellYan $ q_{T} $ resummation of fiducial power corrections at N$ ^{3} $LL  JHEP 04 (2021) 102  2006.11382 
13  T. Becher and T. Neumann  Fiducial $ q_T $ resummation of colorsinglet processes at N$ ^3 $LL+NNLO  JHEP 03 (2021) 199  2009.11437 
14  F. Hautmann et al.  Softgluon resolution scale in QCD evolution equations  PLB 772 (2017) 446  1704.01757 
15  F. Hautmann et al.  Collinear and TMD quark and gluon densities from parton branching solution of QCD evolution equations  JHEP 01 (2018) 070  1708.03279 
16  A. Banfi et al.  Optimisation of variables for studying dilepton transverse momentum distributions at hadron colliders  EPJC 71 (2011) 1600  1009.1580 
17  A. Banfi, M. Dasgupta, S. Marzani, and L. Tomlinson  Predictions for DrellYan $ \phi^* $ and $ Q_T $ observables at the LHC  PLB 715 (2012) 152  1205.4760 
18  S. Marzani  $ Q_T $ and $ \phi^* $ observables in DrellYan processes  Eur. Phys. J. Web Conf. 49 (2013) 14007  
19  L. Moureaux  Measurement of the transverse momentum of DrellYan lepton pairs over a wide mass range in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt s = 13\:\mathrm{TeV} $ in CMS  PhD thesis, Université libre de Bruxelles, . ep, 2021 Presented 24 (2021) S 

20  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive $ W $ and $ Z $ production cross sections in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 10 (2011) 132  CMSEWK10005 1107.4789 
21  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the DrellYan cross section in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 10 (2011) 007  CMSEWK10007 1108.0566 
22  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential and doubledifferential DrellYan cross sections in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV  JHEP 12 (2013) 030  CMSSMP13003 1310.7291 
23  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of differential and doubledifferential DrellYan cross sections in protonproton collisions at 8 TeV  EPJC 75 (2015) 147  CMSSMP14003 1412.1115 
24  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the Z boson differential cross section in transverse momentum and rapidity in protonproton collisions at 8 TeV  PLB 749 (2015) 187  CMSSMP13013 1504.03511 
25  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential DrellYan cross section in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{\mathrm{s}} $ = 13 TeV  JHEP 12 (2019) 059  CMSSMP17001 1812.10529 
26  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of differential Z boson production cross sections in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13 TeV  JHEP 12 (2019) 061  CMSSMP17010 1909.04133 
27  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive $ W^\pm $ and $ Z/\gamma^* $ cross sections in the electron and muon decay channels in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PRD 85 (2012) 072004  1109.5141 
28  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the highmass DrellYan differential crosssection in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PLB 725 (2013) 223  1305.4192 
29  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ Z/\gamma^* $ boson transverse momentum distribution in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 09 (2014) 145  1406.3660 
30  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the lowmass DrellYan differential cross section at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector  JHEP 06 (2014) 112  1404.1212 
31  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the transverse momentum and $ \phi ^*_{\eta } $ distributions of DrellYan lepton pairs in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 76 (2016) 291  1512.02192 
32  ATLAS Collaboration  Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusive $ W^+ $, $ W^ $ and $ Z/\gamma ^* $ production cross sections with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 77 (2017) 367  1612.03016 
33  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the transverse momentum distribution of DrellYan lepton pairs in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 80 (2020) 616  1912.02844 
34  LHCb Collaboration  Inclusive $ W $ and $ Z $ production in the forward region at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV  JHEP 06 (2012) 058  1204.1620 
35  LHCb Collaboration  Measurement of the crosssection for $ Z \to e^+e^ $ production in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 02 (2013) 106  1212.4620 
36  LHCb Collaboration  Measurement of the forward $ Z $ boson production crosssection in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 08 (2015) 039  1505.07024 
37  LHCb Collaboration  Measurement of forward W and Z boson production in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JHEP 01 (2016) 155  1511.08039 
38  LHCb Collaboration  Measurement of the forward Z boson production crosssection in $ \mathrm{pp} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 09 (2016) 136  1607.06495 
39  CDF Collaboration  The transverse momentum and total cross section of $ \rm{ e^+e^} $ pairs in the Z boson region from $ \mathrm{p}\bar{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.8 TeV  PRL 84 (2000) 845  hepex/0001021 
40  D0 Collaboration  Differential production cross section of Z bosons as a function of transverse momentum at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.8 TeV  PRL 84 (2000) 2792  hepex/9909020 
41  D0 Collaboration  Measurement of the shape of the boson transverse momentum distribution in $ \mathrm{p} \bar{\mathrm{p}} \to \mathrm{Z} / \gamma^{*} \to \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ + X $ events produced at $ \sqrt{s}=1.96 \,\text{Te\hspace{.08em}V} $  PRL 100 (2008) 102002  0712.0803 
42  D0 Collaboration  Measurement of the normalized $ \mathrm{Z}/\gamma^* \to \mu^+\mu^ $ transverse momentum distribution in $ \mathrm{p}\bar{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 1.96 TeV  PLB 693 (2010) 522  1006.0618 
43  D0 Collaboration  Precise study of the $ \mathrm{Z}/\gamma^* $ boson transverse momentum distribution in $ \mathrm{p}\overline{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions using a novel technique  PRL 106 (2011) 122001  1010.0262 
44  CDF Collaboration  Transverse momentum cross section of $ e^+e^ $ pairs in the $ Z $boson region from $ p\bar{p} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 1.96 TeV  PRD 86 (2012) 052010  1207.7138 
45  D0 Collaboration  Measurement of the $ {\phi}_{\eta}^{*} $ distribution of muon pairs with masses between 30 and 500 GeV in 10.4 $ \text{ }\text{ }{\mathrm{fb}}^{1} $ of $ \mathrm{p}\bar{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions  PRD 91 (2015) 072002  1410.8052 
46  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
47  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
48  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 
49  A. Bodek et al.  Extracting muon momentum scale corrections for hadron collider experiments  EPJC 72 (2012) 2194  1208.3710 
50  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
51  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
52  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the PhaseII upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

53  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS Level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13\,TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
54  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
55  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
56  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
57  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 1712.07158 
58  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 
59  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
60  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
61  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016) 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
62  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC Run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
63  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
64  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
65  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 
66  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi  A positiveweight nexttoleadingorder Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction  JHEP 09 (2007) 126  0707.3088 
67  P. Nason and G. Zanderighi  $ \mathrm{W}^+ \mathrm{W}^ $, WZ and ZZ production in the \sc powhegboxv2  EPJC 74 (2014) 2702  1311.1365 
68  J. A. M. Vermaseren  Two photon processes at very highenergies  NPB 229 (1983) 347  
69  S. P. Baranov, O. Duenger, H. Shooshtari, and J. A. M. Vermaseren  LPAIR: A generator for lepton pair production  in Workshop on Physics at HERA, 1991  
70  A. Suri and D. R. Yennie  The spacetime phenomenology of photon absorption and inelastic electron scattering  Annals Phys. 72 (1972) 243  
71  J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and W. T. Giele  A multithreaded version of MCFM  EPJC 75 (2015) 246  1503.06182 
72  T. Gehrmann et al.  $ W^+W^ $ production at hadron colliders in next to next to leading order QCD  PRL 113 (2014) 212001  1408.5243 
73  M. Czakon and A. Mitov  Top++: A program for the calculation of the toppair crosssection at hadron colliders  Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 2930  1112.5675 
74  \GEANTfour Collaboration  $ GEANT $ 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
75  G. D'Agostini  A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem  NIM A 362 (1995) 487  
76  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for Z boson production in association with jets in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  EPJC 78 (2018) 965  CMSSMP16015 1804.05252 
77  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of differential production cross sections for a Z boson in association with jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JHEP 04 (2017) 022  CMSSMP14013 1611.03844 
78  CMS Collaboration  Precision luminosity measurement in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS  EPJC 81 (2021) 800  CMSLUM17003 2104.01927 
79  A. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi  How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function  PRL 117 (2016) 242002  1607.04266 
80  A. V. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi  The photon content of the proton  JHEP 12 (2017) 046  1708.01256 
81  P. F. Monni et al.  MiNNLO$ _{\text{PS}} $: a new method to match NNLO QCD to parton showers  JHEP 05 (2020) 143  1908.06987 
82  P. F. Monni, E. Re, and M. Wiesemann  MiNNLO$ _{\text {PS}} $: optimizing 2 $ \rightarrow $ 1 hadronic processes  EPJC 80 (2020) 1075  2006.04133 
83  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
84  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
85  S. Baranov et al.  CASCADE3 A Monte Carlo event generator based on TMDs  EPJC 81 (2021) 425  2101.10221 
86  A. Bermudez Martinez et al.  Production of Zbosons in the parton branching method  PRD 100 (2019) 074027  1906.00919 
87  A. Bermudez Martinez et al.  Collinear and TMD parton densities from fits to precision DIS measurements in the parton branching method  PRD 99 (2019) 074008  1804.11152 
88  T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands  PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual  JHEP 05 (2006) 026  hepph/0603175 
89  A. Bermudez Martinez, F. Hautmann, and M. L. Mangano  TMD evolution and multijet merging  PLB 822 (2021) 136700  2107.01224 
90  I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov  Analysis of vector boson production within TMD factorization  EPJC 78 (2018) 89  1706.01473 
91  I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov  Nonperturbative structure of semiinclusive deepinelastic and DrellYan scattering at small transverse momentum  JHEP 06 (2020) 137  1912.06532 
92  CMSnoop  arTeMiDe public repository  \href. \urlhttps://github.com/VladimirovAlexey/artemidepublic,, 2020  
93  S. Alioli et al.  Combining higherorder resummation with multiple NLO calculations and parton showers in GENEVA  JHEP 09 (2013) 120  1211.7049 
94  S. Alioli et al.  DrellYan production at NNLL'+NNLO matched to parton showers  PRD 92 (2015) 094020  1508.01475 
95  S. Alioli et al.  Matching NNLO predictions to parton showers using $ {\mathrm{N}}^{3}\mathrm{LL} $ colorsinglet transverse momentum resummation in GENEVA  PRD 104 (2021) 094020  2102.08390 
96  I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn  Njettiness: An inclusive event shape to veto jets  PRL 105 (2010) 092002  1004.2489 
97  P. F. Monni, E. Re, and P. Torrielli  Higgs transversemomentum resummation in direct space  PRL 116 (2016) 242001  1604.02191 
98  W. Bizon et al.  Momentumspace resummation for transverse observables and the Higgs p$ _{\perp} $ at N$ ^{3} $LL+NNLO  JHEP 02 (2018) 108  1705.09127 
99  J. Butterworth et al.  PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II  JPG 43 (2016) 023001  1510.03865 
100  CMS Collaboration  HEPData record for this analysis  link 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 