CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-12-042 ; CERN-EP-2016-139
Measurement of the differential cross sections for top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV
Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 052006
Abstract: Measurements are reported of the normalized differential cross sections for top quark pair production with respect to four kinematic event variables: the missing transverse energy; the scalar sum of the jet transverse momentum ($p_{\mathrm{T}}$); the scalar sum of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of all objects in the event; and the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of leptonically decaying W bosons from top quark decays. The data sample, collected using the CMS detector at the LHC, consists of 5.0 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV and 19.7 fb$^{-1}$ at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. Top quark pair events containing one electron or muon are selected. The results are presented after correcting for detector effects to allow direct comparison with theoretical predictions. No significant deviations from the predictions of several standard model event simulation generators are observed.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
The observed distributions of ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}} $ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
The observed distributions of ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}} $ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
The observed distributions of ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}} $ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
The observed distributions of ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}} $ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
The observed distributions of ${S_\mathrm {T}} $ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
The observed distributions of ${S_\mathrm {T}} $ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
The observed distributions of ${S_\mathrm {T}} $ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
The observed distributions of ${S_\mathrm {T}} $ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) in the $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV electron+jets (a,c) and muon+jets (b,d) data samples, compared to predictions from simulation. The points are the data histograms, with the vertical bars showing the statistical uncertainty, and the predictions from the simulation are the solid histograms. The shaded region shows the uncertainty in the values from simulation. These include contributions from the statistical uncertainty and the uncertainty in the ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross section. The lower plots show the ratio of the number of events from data and the prediction from the MC simulation.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from the combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from the combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from the combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from the combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Normalized ${E_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}}$ (a,b) and ${H_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
Normalized ${S_\mathrm {T}}$ (a,b) and ${ p_\mathrm {T}^{\mathrm {W}} }$ (c,d) differential ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ cross sections from combined electron and muon data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The vertical bars on the data points represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The inner section of the vertical bars, denoted by the tick marks, show the statistical uncertainty. a,c: comparison with different simulation event generators: MadGraph+PYTHIA (both the default and after reweighting the top quark $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ spectrum), MC@NLO+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+HERWIG, POWHEG v1+PYTHIA, POWHEG v2+HERWIG, and POWHEG v2+PYTHIA. b,d: comparison with predictions from the MadGraph+PYTHIA event generator found by varying the matching threshold and renormalization scales ($\mu _{\mathrm {R}}$, $\mu _{\mathrm {F}}$) up and down by a factor of two. The lower plots show the ratio of the predictions to the data, with the statistical and total uncertainties in the ratios indicated by the two shaded bands.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Typical relative systematic uncertainties in percent (median values) in the normalized ${\mathrm{ t \bar{t} } }$ differential cross section measurement as a function of the four kinematic event variables at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). Typical values of the total systematic uncertainty are also shown.

png pdf
Table A1:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.

png pdf
Table A2:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $S_{\mathrm{T}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.

png pdf
Table A3:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{W}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.

png pdf
Table A4:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.

png pdf
Table A5:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.

png pdf
Table A6:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $S_{\mathrm{T}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.

png pdf
Table A7:
Normalized $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ differential cross section measurements with respect to the $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{W}}$ variable at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV (combination of electron and muon channels). The rightmost three columns show the relative uncertainties on the measured values, in percent. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are listed separately, and are combined in quadrature to give the overall relative uncertainty.
Summary
A measurement of the normalized differential cross section of top quark pair production with respect to the four kinematic event variables $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}}$, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$, ${S_\mathrm{T}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{W}}$ has been performed in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV using 5.0 fb$^{-1}$ and at 8 TeV using 19.7 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the CMS experiment.

This study confirms previous CMS findings that the observed top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectrum is softer than predicted by the MadGraph, POWHEG, and MCatNLO event generators, but otherwise there is broad consistency between the MC event generators and observation. This result provides confidence in the description of $\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }$ production in the SM and its implementation in the most frequently used simulation packages.

References
1 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
2 CDF Collaboration First measurement of the $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ differential cross section $ \rd \sigma/\rd M_{\mathrm{ t \bar{t} }} $ in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ \bar{p} } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96 TeV PRL 102 (2009) 222003 0903.2850
3 D0 Collaboration Measurement of differential $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production cross sections in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ \bar{p} } $ collisions PRD 90 (2014) 092006 1401.5785
4 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ colisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV EPJC 73 (2013) 2339 CMS-TOP-11-013
1211.2220
5 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV EPJC 75 (2015) 542 CMS-TOP-12-028
1505.04480
6 CMS Collaboration Measurement of $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production with additional jet activity, including $ \mathrm{ b } $ quark jets, in the dilepton channel using $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV Accepted in EPJC CMS-TOP-12-041
1510.03072
7 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production cross section for high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ top quarks in $ \mathrm{ e } $/$ \mu $+jets final states at 8$ TeV $ CMS-PAS-TOP-14-012 CMS-PAS-TOP-14-012
8 ATLAS Collaboration Differential $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ cross-section measurements as a function of observables constructed from final-state particles using $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV in the ATLAS detector JHEP 06 (2015) 100 1502.05923
9 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross-section of highly boosted top quarks as a function of their transverse momentum in $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector PRD 93 (2016) 032009 1510.03818
10 J. Alwall et al. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations JHEP 07 (2014) 079 1405.0301
11 M. Czakon and A. Mitov Top++: a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders CPC 185 (2014) 2930 1112.5675
12 M. Botje et al. The PDF4LHC Working Group interim recommendations 1101.0538
13 S. Alekhin et al. The PDF4LHC Working Group interim report 1101.0536
14 A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt Uncertainties on $ \alpha_{S} $ in global PDF analyses and implications for predicted hadronic cross sections EPJC 64 (2009) 653 0905.3531
15 J. Gao et al. CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD PRD 89 (2014) 033009 1302.6246
16 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions with LHC data Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244 1207.1303
17 T. Sj\"ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual JHEP 05 (2006) 026 hep-ph/0603175
18 S. H\"oche et al. Matching parton showers and matrix elements in HERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the implications of HERA for LHC physics: Proceedings Part A 2006 hep-ph/0602031
19 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4---a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
20 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
21 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
22 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
23 S. Frixione and B. R. Webber Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations JHEP 06 (2002) 029 hep-ph/0204244
24 G. Corcella et al. HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes) JHEP 01 (2001) 010 hep-ph/0011363
25 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111, , [Erratum: \DOI10.1007/JHEP02(2010)011] 0907.4076
26 E. Re Single-top $ \mathrm{ W }\mathrm{ t } $-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
27 K. Melnikov and F. Petriello Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through $ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_{s}^2) $ PRD 74 (2006) 114017 hep-ph/0609070
28 K. Melnikov and F. Petriello $ \mathrm{ W } $ boson production cross section at the large hadron collider with $ \mathcal{O}( \alpha_{s}^{2} ) $ corrections PRL 96 (2006) 231803
29 N. Kidonakis NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714 1210.7813
30 J. Pumplin et al. New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis JHEP 07 (2002) 012 hep-ph/0201195
31 H.-L. Lai et al. New parton distributions for collider physics PRD 82 (2010) 074024 1007.2241
32 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV and comparison with $ \sqrt{s} = $ 0.9 TeV JHEP 09 (2011) 109 CMS-QCD-10-010
1107.0330
33 ATLAS Collaboration ATLAS tunes of PYTHIA 6 and Pythia 8 for MC11 Technical Report ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-009, CERN
34 P. Bartalini, R. Chierici, and A. de Roeck Guidelines for the estimation of theoretical uncertainties at the LHC CMS-NOTE-2005-013
35 CMS Collaboration Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker JINST 9 (2014) P10009 CMS-TRK-11-001
1405.6569
36 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow event reconstruction in CMS and performance for jets, taus, and $ \met $ CDS
37 CMS Collaboration Commissioning of the particle-flow reconstruction in minimum-bias and jet events from $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at 7$ TeV $ CDS
38 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
39 CMS Collaboration Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collision events at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV JINST 7 (2012) P10002 CMS-MUO-10-004
1206.4071
40 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 hep-ph/0802.1189
41 CMS Collaboration Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS JINST 6 (2011) P11002 CMS-JME-10-011
1107.4277
42 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The catchment area of jets JHEP 04 (2008) 005 0802.1188
43 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Pileup subtraction using jet areas PLB 659 (2008) 119 0707.1378
44 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the ratio of the inclusive 3-jet cross section to the inclusive 2-jet cross section in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV and first determination of the strong coupling constant in the TeV range EPJC 73 (2013) 2604 CMS-QCD-11-003
1304.7498
45 CMS Collaboration Identification of $ \mathrm{ b } $-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) P04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
46 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P02006 CMS-JME-13-003
1411.0511
47 A. H\"ocker and V. Kartvelishvili SVD approach to data unfolding NIMA 372 (1996) 469 hep-ph/9509307
48 T. Adye Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold in Proceedings of the PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop, CERN-2011-006, p. 313 2011 1105.1160
49 Particle Data Group, K. A. Olive et al. Review of Particle Physics CPC 38 (2014) 090001
50 CMS Collaboration Measurements of inclusive $ \mathrm{ W } $ and $ \mathrm{ Z } $ cross sections in $ \mathrm{ p }\mathrm{ p } $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV JHEP 01 (2011) 080 CMS-EWK-10-002
1012.2466
51 CMS Collaboration Evidence for the 125 GeV Higgs boson decaying to a pair of $ \tau $ leptons JHEP 05 (2014) 104 CMS-HIG-13-004
1401.5041
52 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV PLB 722 (2013) 5 CMS-FWD-11-001
1210.6718
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN