CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-18-009 ; CERN-EP-2019-124
Measurement of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
JHEP 03 (2020) 056
Abstract: A measurement of the inclusive cross section of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson using proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV at the LHC is performed. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 77.5 fb$^{-1}$, collected by the CMS experiment during 2016 and 2017. The measurement is performed using final states containing three or four charged leptons (electrons or muons), and the Z boson is detected through its decay to an oppositely charged lepton pair. The production cross section is measured to be $\sigma({\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{Z}} )=$ 0.95 $\pm$ 0.05 (stat) $\pm$ 0.06 (syst) pb. For the first time, differential cross sections are measured as functions of the transverse momentum of the Z boson and the angular distribution of the negatively charged lepton from the Z boson decay. The most stringent direct limits to date on the anomalous couplings of the top quark to the Z boson are presented, including constraints on the Wilson coefficients in the framework of the standard model effective field theory.
Figures & Tables Summary Additional Figures References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields versus lepton flavor (upper left), and the reconstructed transverse momentum of the Z boson candidates (upper right) in the WZ-enriched data control event category, and versus lepton flavor (lower left) and ${N_{\mathrm{b}}}$ (lower right) in the ZZ-enriched event category. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the event yields in data to the predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields versus lepton flavor in the WZ-enriched data control event category. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields versus the reconstructed transverse momentum of the Z boson candidates in the WZ-enriched data control event category. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields versus lepton flavor in the ZZ-enriched event category. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields versus ${N_{\mathrm{b}}}$ in the ZZ-enriched event category. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields in regions enriched with nonprompt lepton backgrounds in $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $-like processes as a function of the lepton flavors (upper left), the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ of the lowest-${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (trailing) lepton (upper right), and ${N_{\mathrm{b}}}$ (bottom). The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the event yields in data to the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields in regions enriched with nonprompt lepton backgrounds in $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $-like processes as a function of the lepton flavors. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields in regions enriched with nonprompt lepton backgrounds in $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $-like processes as a function of the ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ of the lowest-${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ (trailing) lepton. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) event yields in regions enriched with nonprompt lepton backgrounds in $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $-like processes as a function of ${N_{\mathrm{b}}}$. The vertical lines on the points show the statistical uncertainties in the data, and the band the total uncertainty in the predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the event yields in data to the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Observed event yields in data for different values of ${N_\text {j}}$ and ${N_{\mathrm{b}}}$ for events with 3 and 4 leptons, compared with the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit. The lower panel displays the ratio of the data to the predictions of the signal and background from simulation. The inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Kinematic distributions from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The distributions include the lepton flavor (upper left), number of b-tagged jets (upper right), jet multiplicity (middle left), dilepton invariant mass ${m(\ell \ell)}$ (middle right), ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ (lower left), and $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$ (lower right). The lower panels in each plot give the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Distribution of the lepton flavor, from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Distribution of the number of b-tagged jets, from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Distribution of the jet multiplicity, from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Distribution of the dilepton invariant mass ${m(\ell \ell)}$, from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 4-e:
Distribution of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$, from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 4-f:
Distribution of $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$, from a ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ signal-enriched subset of events for data (points), compared to the contributions of the signal and background yields from the fit (shaded histograms). The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background from the fit. The band shows the total uncertainty in the signal and background yields, as obtained from the fit.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Measured differential ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ production cross sections in the full phase space as a function of the transverse momentum ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ of the Z boson (upper row) and $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$, as defined in the text (lower row). Shown are the absolute (left) and normalized (right) cross sections. The data are represented by the points. The inner (outer) vertical lines indicate the statistical (total) uncertainties. The solid histogram shows the prediction from the MadGraph 5\_aMC@NLO MC simulation, and the dashed histogram shows the theory prediction at NLO+NNLL accuracy. The hatched bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, as defined in the text. The lower panels display the ratios of the predictions to the measurement.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Measured differential ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ production cross sections in the full phase space as a function of the transverse momentum ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ of the Z boson Shown are the absolute cross sections. The data are represented by the points. The inner (outer) vertical lines indicate the statistical (total) uncertainties. The solid histogram shows the prediction from the MadGraph 5_aMC@NLO MC simulation, and the dashed histogram shows the theory prediction at NLO+NNLL accuracy. The hatched bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, as defined in the text. The lower panel displays the ratios of the predictions to the measurement.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Measured differential ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ production cross sections in the full phase space as a function of the transverse momentum ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ of the Z boson. Shown are the normalized cross sections. The data are represented by the points. The inner (outer) vertical lines indicate the statistical (total) uncertainties. The solid histogram shows the prediction from the MadGraph 5_aMC@NLO MC simulation, and the dashed histogram shows the theory prediction at NLO+NNLL accuracy. The hatched bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, as defined in the text. The lower panel displays the ratios of the predictions to the measurement.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Measured differential ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ production cross sections in the full phase space as a function of the transverse momentum ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ of $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$. Shown are the absolute cross sections. The data are represented by the points. The inner (outer) vertical lines indicate the statistical (total) uncertainties. The solid histogram shows the prediction from the MadGraph 5_aMC@NLO MC simulation, and the dashed histogram shows the theory prediction at NLO+NNLL accuracy. The hatched bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, as defined in the text. The lower panel displays the ratios of the predictions to the measurement.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Measured differential ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ production cross sections in the full phase space as a function of the transverse momentum ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ of $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$. Shown are the normalized cross sections. The data are represented by the points. The inner (outer) vertical lines indicate the statistical (total) uncertainties. The solid histogram shows the prediction from the MadGraph 5_aMC@NLO MC simulation, and the dashed histogram shows the theory prediction at NLO+NNLL accuracy. The hatched bands indicate the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, as defined in the text. The lower panel displays the ratios of the predictions to the measurement.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The observed (points) and predicted (shaded histograms) post-fit yields for the combined 2016 and 2017 data sets in the control and signal regions. In the $ {N_{\ell}} =$ 3 control and signal regions (bins 1-12), each of the four ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})}$ categories is further split into three $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$ bins. The horizontal bars on the points give the statistical uncertainties in the data. The lower panel displays the ratio of the data to the predictions and the hatched regions show the total uncertainty. The solid line shows the best-fit prediction from the SMEFT fit.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Results of scans in two 2D planes for the SMEFT interpretation. The shading quantified by the gray scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio $q$ with respect to the best-fit value, designated by the diamond. The solid and dashed lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The cross shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Result of a scan in a two 2D plane for the SMEFT interpretation. The shading quantified by the gray scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio $q$ with respect to the best-fit value, designated by the diamond. The solid and dashed lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The cross shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Result of a scan in a two 2D plane for the SMEFT interpretation. The shading quantified by the gray scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio $q$ with respect to the best-fit value, designated by the diamond. The solid and dashed lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The cross shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Results of scans in the axial-vector and vector current coupling plane (left) and the electroweak dipole moment plane (right). The shading quantified by the gray scale on the right of each plot reflects the log-likelihood ratio $q$ with respect to the best-fit value, designated by the diamond. The solid and dashed lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The cross shows the SM prediction. The area between the dot-dashed ellipses in the axial-vector and vector current coupling plane corresponds to the observed 68% CL area from the previous CMS result [89].

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
Result of a scan in the axial-vector and vector current coupling plane. The shading quantified by the gray scale on the right of each plot reflects the log-likelihood ratio $q$ with respect to the best-fit value, designated by the diamond. The solid and dashed lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The cross shows the SM prediction. The area between the dot-dashed ellipses in the plane corresponds to the observed 68% CL area from the previous CMS result [89].

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
Result of a scan in the electroweak dipole moment plane. The shading quantified by the gray scale on the right of each plot reflects the log-likelihood ratio $q$ with respect to the best-fit value, designated by the diamond. The solid and dashed lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The cross shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 9:
1D scans of two Wilson coefficients, with the value of the other Wilson coefficients set to zero. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value. Previously excluded regions at 95% CL [3] (if available) are indicated by the hatched band. Indirect constraints from Ref. [90] are shown as a cross-hatched band.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
1D scan of two Wilson coefficients, with the value of the other Wilson coefficients set to zero. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value. Indirect constraints from Ref. [90] are shown as a cross-hatched band.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
1D scan of two Wilson coefficients, with the value of the other Wilson coefficients set to zero. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value. Previously excluded regions at 95% CL [3] are indicated by the hatched band. Indirect constraints from Ref. [90] are shown as a cross-hatched band.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
1D scan of two Wilson coefficients, with the value of the other Wilson coefficients set to zero. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value. Indirect constraints from Ref. [90] are shown as a cross-hatched band.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
1D scan of two Wilson coefficients, with the value of the other Wilson coefficients set to zero. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value. Indirect constraints from Ref. [90] are shown as a cross-hatched band.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Log-likelihood ratios for 1D scans of anomalous couplings. For the scan of $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ (upper left), $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ was set to the SM value of 0.24, and for the scan of $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ (upper right), $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ was set to the SM value of $-0.60$. For the scans of $ {C_{2,\mathrm {A}}}$ (lower left) and $ {C_{2,\mathrm {V}}}$ (lower right), which correspond to the top quark electric and magnetic dipole moments, respectively, both $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ and $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ are set to the SM values. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best-fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Log-likelihood ratio for the 1D scan of the $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ anomalous coupling. The value of $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ was set to the SM value of 0.24. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best-fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Log-likelihood ratio for the 1D scan of the $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ anomalous coupling. The value of $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ was set to the SM value of $-0.60$. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best-fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value.

png pdf
Figure 10-c:
Log-likelihood ratio for the 1D scan of the $ {C_{2,\mathrm {A}}}$ anomalous coupling, which correspond to the top quark electric dipole moment. The values of $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ and $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ were set to the SM values. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best-fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value.

png pdf
Figure 10-d:
Log-likelihood ratio for the 1D scan of the $ {C_{2,\mathrm {V}}}$ anomalous coupling, which correspond to the top quark magnetic dipole moment. The values of $ {C_{1,\mathrm {V}}}$ and $ {C_{1,\mathrm {A}}}$ were set to the SM values. The shaded areas correspond to the 68 and 95% CL intervals around the best-fit value, respectively. The downward triangle indicates the SM value.

png pdf
Figure 11:
The observed 95% CL intervals for the Wilson coefficients from this measurement, the previous CMS result based on the inclusive ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ cross section measurement [3], and the most recent ATLAS result [4]. The direct limits within the SMEFiT framework [87] and from the TopFitter Collaboration [88], and the 68% CL indirect limits from electroweak data are also shown [90]. The vertical line displays the SM prediction.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Event generators used to simulate events for the various processes. For each of the simulated processes shown, the order of the cross section normalization, the event generator used, the perturbative order of the generator calculation, and the NNPDF versions at NLO and at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) used in simulating samples for the 2016 (2017) data sets.

png pdf
Table 2:
Summary of the sources, magnitudes, treatments, and effects of the systematic uncertainties in the final ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ cross section measurement. The first column indicates the source of the uncertainty, the second column shows the corresponding input uncertainty range for each background source and the signal. The third column indicates how correlations are treated between the uncertainties in the 2016 and 2017 data, where xx means fully correlated and ${\times}$ uncorrelated. The last column gives the corresponding systematic uncertainty in the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ cross section from each source. The total systematic uncertainty, the statistical uncertainty and the total uncertainty in the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ cross section are shown in the last three lines.

png pdf
Table 3:
The measured ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z}}$ cross section for events with with 3 and 4 leptons and the combined measurement.

png pdf
Table 4:
The observed number of events for three- and four-lepton events in a signal-enriched sample of events, and the predicted yields and total uncertainties from the fit for each process.

png pdf
Table 5:
Definition of the signal regions (SRs) and control regions (CRs). For signal regions SR13, SR14, and SR15 and control regions CR13, CR14, and CR15, there is no requirement on $\cos\theta ^\ast _{\mathrm{Z}}$.

png pdf
Table 6:
Expected and observed 68 and 95% CL intervals from this measurement for the listed Wilson coefficients. The expected and observed 95% CL intervals from a previous CMS measurement [3] and indirect 68% CL constraints from precision electroweak data [90] are shown for comparison.
Summary
A measurement of top quark pair production in association with a Z boson using a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 77.5 fb$^{-1}$, collected with the CMS detector at the LHC has been presented. The analysis was performed in the three- and four-lepton final states using analysis categories defined with jet and b jet multiplicities. Data samples enriched in background processes were used to validate predictions, as well as to constrain their uncertainties. The larger data set and reduced systematic uncertainties such as those associated with the lepton identification, helped to substantially improve the precision on the measured cross section with respect to previous measurements reported in Refs. [3,4]. The measured inclusive cross section $\sigma({\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{Z}} )=$ 0.95 $\pm$ 0.05 (stat) $\pm$ 0.06 (syst) pb is in good agreement with the standard model prediction of 0.84 $\pm$ 0.10 pb [30,31,32]. This is the most precise measurement of the ${\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\mathrm{Z}}$ cross section to date, and the first measurement with a precision competing with current theoretical calculations.

Absolute and normalized differential cross sections for the transverse momentum of the Z boson and for ${\cos\theta^\ast_{\mathrm{Z}}} $, the angle between the direction of the Z boson and the direction of the negatively charged lepton in the rest frame of the Z boson, are measured for the first time. The standard model predictions at next-to-leading order are found to be in good agreement with the measured differential cross sections. The measurement is also interpreted in terms of anomalous interactions of the t quark with the Z boson. Confidence intervals for the anomalous vector and the axial-vector current couplings and the dipole moment interactions are presented. Constraints on the Wilson coefficients in the standard model effective field theory are also presented.
Additional Figures

png pdf
Additional Figure 1:
Covariance matrix of the measured absolute differential cross section as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})$.

png pdf
Additional Figure 2:
Correlation matrix of the measured absolute differential cross section as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})$.

png pdf
Additional Figure 3:
Covariance matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})$.

png pdf
Additional Figure 4:
Correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{Z})$.

png pdf
Additional Figure 5:
Covariance matrix of the measured absolute differential cross section as a function of $\cos\theta _{\mathrm{Z}}^{*} $.

png pdf
Additional Figure 6:
Correlation matrix of the measured absolute differential cross section as a function of $\cos\theta _{\mathrm{Z}}^{*} $.

png pdf
Additional Figure 7:
Covariance matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of $\cos\theta _{\mathrm{Z}}^{*} $.

png pdf
Additional Figure 8:
Correlation matrix of the measured normalized differential cross section as a function of $\cos\theta _{\mathrm{Z}}^{*} $.

png pdf
Additional Figure 9:
Response matrix describing the probability for a ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $ event with a certain true value of the Z boson ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ to be selected with a certain reconstructed value of the Z boson ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$.

png pdf
Additional Figure 10:
Response matrix describing the probability for a ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $ event with a certain true value of $\cos\theta _{\mathrm{Z}}^{*} $ to be selected with a certain reconstructed value of $\cos\theta _{\mathrm{Z}}^{*} $.
References
1 O. Bessidskaia Bylund et al. Probing top quark neutral couplings in the standard model effective field theory at NLO in QCD JHEP 05 (2016) 052 1601.08193
2 C. Englert, R. Kogler, H. Schulz, and M. Spannowsky Higgs coupling measurements at the LHC EPJC 76 (2016) 393 1511.05170
3 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 08 (2018) 011 CMS-TOP-17-005
1711.02547
4 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}Z} $ and $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}W} $ cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRD 99 (2019) 072009 1901.03584
5 W. Hollik et al. Top dipole form-factors and loop induced CP violation in supersymmetry NPB 551 (1999) 3 hep-ph/9812298
6 K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni Collider signals of top quark flavor violation from a warped extra dimension PRD 75 (2007) 015002 hep-ph/0606293
7 A. L. Kagan, G. Perez, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan General minimal flavor violation PRD 80 (2009) 076002 0903.1794
8 T. Ibrahim and P. Nath Top quark electric dipole moment in a minimal supersymmetric standard model extension with vectorlike multiplets PRD 82 (2010) 055001 1007.0432
9 T. Ibrahim and P. Nath Chromoelectric dipole moment of the top quark in models with vectorlike multiplets PRD 84 (2011) 015003 1104.3851
10 C. Grojean, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Panico Light top partners and precision physics JHEP 10 (2013) 160 1306.4655
11 J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra A minimal set of top anomalous couplings NPB 812 (2009) 181 0811.3842
12 B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian JHEP 10 (2010) 085 1008.4884
13 J. A. Aguilar Saavedra et al. Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory 1802.07237
14 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
15 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
16 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
17 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
18 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
19 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
20 T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 CPC 178 (2008) 852 0710.3820
21 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
22 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
23 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
24 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements Submitted to EPJC CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
25 CMS Collaboration Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021 CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
26 J. Alwall et al. Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions EPJC 53 (2008) 473 0706.2569
27 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
28 Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al. Review of particle physics PRD 98 (2018) 030001
29 J. Butterworth et al. PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II JPG 43 (2016) 023001 1510.03865
30 D. de Florian et al. Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector CERN-2017-002-M 1610.07922
31 S. Frixione et al. Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons JHEP 06 (2015) 184 1504.03446
32 R. Frederix et al. The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations JHEP 07 (2018) 185 1804.10017
33 F. Caola, K. Melnikov, R. Rontsch, and L. Tancredi QCD corrections to ZZ production in gluon fusion at the LHC PRD 92 (2015) 094028 1509.06734
34 J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10 1007.3492
35 S. Bolognesi et al. Spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC PRD 86 (2012) 095031 1208.4018
36 F. Cascioli et al. ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD PLB 735 (2014) 311 1405.2219
37 T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi $ \mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^- $, $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ production in the POWHEG BOX JHEP 11 (2011) 078 1107.5051
38 P. Nason and G. Zanderighi $ \mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^- $ , $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z} $ and $ \mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z} $ production in the POWHEG-BOX-V2 EPJC 74 (2014) 2702 1311.1365
39 G. Luisoni, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and F. Tramontano $ \rm HW^{\pm} $/$\mathrm{HZ}$ + 0 and 1 jet at NLO with the POWHEG BOX interfaced to GoSam and their merging within MiNLO JHEP 10 (2013) 083 1306.2542
40 H. B. Hartanto, B. Jager, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG BOX PRD 91 (2015) 094003 1501.04498
41 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
42 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
43 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
44 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
45 CMS Collaboration Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV JINST 7 (2012) P10002 CMS-MUO-10-004
1206.4071
46 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
47 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
48 CMS Collaboration Pileup removal algorithms CMS-PAS-JME-14-001 CMS-PAS-JME-14-001
49 CMS Collaboration Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS JINST 6 (2011) P11002 CMS-JME-10-011
1107.4277
50 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (2017) P02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
51 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P05011 CMS-BTV-16-002
1712.07158
52 CMS Collaboration Observation of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $H production PRL 120 (2018) 231801 CMS-HIG-17-035
1804.02610
53 H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt TMVA, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with ROOT in XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT), p. 40 2007 [PoS(ACAT)040] physics/0703039
54 CMS Collaboration Search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in the single-lepton final state using the sum of masses of large-radius jets JHEP 08 (2016) 122 CMS-SUS-15-007
1605.04608
55 J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and R. Rontsch Single top production in association with a Z boson at the LHC PRD 87 (2013) 114006 1302.3856
56 CMS Collaboration Observation of single top quark production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PRL 122 (2019) 132003 CMS-TOP-18-008
1812.05900
57 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential cross sections for Z boson pair production in association with jets at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 and 13 TeV PLB 789 (2019) 19 CMS-SMP-17-005
1806.11073
58 D. T. Nhung, L. D. Ninh, and M. M. Weber NLO corrections to WWZ production at the LHC JHEP 12 (2013) 096 1307.7403
59 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the Z$ \gamma $ production cross section in pp collisions at 8 TeV and search for anomalous triple gauge boson couplings JHEP 04 (2015) 164 CMS-SMP-13-014
1502.05664
60 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the cross section for electroweak production of Z$ \gamma $ in association with two jets and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV PLB 770 (2017) 380 CMS-SMP-14-018
1702.03025
61 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
62 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
63 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2018) 161 CMS-FSQ-15-005
1802.02613
64 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PRL 117 (2016) 182002 1606.02625
65 CMS Collaboration Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) P04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
66 R. D. Ball et al. Parton distributions with LHC data NPB 867 (2013) 244 1207.1303
67 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
68 J. Gao et al. CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD PRD 89 (2014) 033009 1302.6246
69 S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjostrand Effects of color reconnection on $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ final states at the LHC JHEP 11 (2014) 043 1407.6653
70 J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands String formation beyond leading colour JHEP 08 (2015) 003 1505.01681
71 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
72 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The CL$ {}_s $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
73 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011 ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS NOTE-2011/005
74 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
75 A. Kulesza et al. Associated production of a top quark pair with a heavy electroweak gauge boson at NLO+NNLL accuracy EPJC 79 (2019) 249 1812.08622
76 G. Cowan Statistical data analysis Clarendon Press, Oxford
77 S. Schmitt TUnfold, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics JINST 7 (2012) T10003 1205.6201
78 A. Kulesza et al. Associated top-pair production with a heavy boson production through NLO+NNLL accuracy at the LHC in 54th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions (Moriond QCD 2019), La Thuile, Italy, March 23-30, 2019 2019 1905.07815
79 R. Rontsch and M. Schulze Constraining couplings of top quarks to the Z boson in $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $+Z production at the LHC JHEP 07 (2014) 091 1404.1005
80 J. Bernabeu, D. Comelli, L. Lavoura, and J. P. Silva Weak magnetic dipole moments in two-Higgs-doublet models PRD 53 (1996) 5222 hep-ph/9509416
81 A. Czarnecki and B. Krause On the dipole moments of fermions at two loops Acta Phys. Polon. B 28 (1997) 829 hep-ph/9611299
82 M. Schulze and Y. Soreq Pinning down electroweak dipole operators of the top quark EPJC 76 (2016) 8 1603.08911
83 C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock Effective-field-theory approach to top-quark production and decay PRD 83 (2011) 034006 1008.3869
84 CMS Collaboration Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using events containing two leptons JHEP 02 (2019) 149 CMS-TOP-17-014
1811.06625
85 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the W boson helicity fractions in the decays of top quark pairs to lepton+jets final states produced in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 8 TeV PLB 762 (2016) 512 CMS-TOP-13-008
1605.09047
86 J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and J. Bernabeu W polarisation beyond helicity fractions in top quark decays NPB 840 (2010) 349 1005.5382
87 N. P. Hartland et al. A Monte Carlo global analysis of the standard model effective field theory: the top quark sector JHEP 04 (2019) 100 1901.05965
88 A. Buckley et al. Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC Run II era JHEP 04 (2016) 015 1512.03360
89 CMS Collaboration Observation of top quark pairs produced in association with a vector boson in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV JHEP 01 (2016) 096 CMS-TOP-14-021
1510.01131
90 C. Zhang, N. Greiner, and S. Willenbrock Constraints on nonstandard top quark couplings PRD 86 (2012) 014024 1201.6670
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN