CMSTOP22009 ; CERNEP2023201  
Inclusive and differential cross section measurements of $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ production in the lepton+jets channel at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
25 September 2023  
JHEP 05 (2024) 042  
Abstract: Measurements of inclusive and normalized differential cross sections of the associated production of top quarkantiquark and bottom quarkantiquark pairs, $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $, are presented. The results are based on data from protonproton collisions collected by the CMS detector at a centreofmass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{1} $. The cross sections are measured in the lepton+jets decay channel of the top quark pair, using events containing exactly one isolated electron or muon and at least five jets. Measurements are made in four fiducial phase space regions, targeting different aspects of the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ process. Distributions are unfolded to the particle level through maximum likelihood fits, and compared with predictions from several event generators. The inclusive cross section measurements of this process in the fiducial phase space regions are the most precise to date. In most cases, the measured inclusive cross sections exceed the predictions with the chosen generator settings. The only exception is when using a particular choice of dynamic renormalization scale, $ {\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=\frac12 \prod_{i=\mathrm{t},\bar{\mathrm{t}},\mathrm{b},\bar{\mathrm{b}}} m_{\mathrm{T},i}^{1/4}} $, where $ {m_{\mathrm{T},i}^2=m_i^2+p_{\mathrm{T},i}^2} $ are the transverse masses of top and bottom quarks. The differential cross sections show varying degrees of compatibility with the theoretical predictions, and none of the tested generators with the chosen settings simultaneously describe all the measured distributions.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2309.14442 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Jet (left) and btagged jet (right) multiplicity with the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b selection prior to any fit, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. For the purpose of visualisation, the contributions from simulation have been scaled by a common factor to match the yield in data. The $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ contribution includes the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $ processes. The shaded bands include all a priori uncertainties described in Section 7, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{B}} $ cross section uncertainty estimated from the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation. Only effects on the shape of the distributions are considered. The last bins also contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Jet (left) and btagged jet (right) multiplicity with the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b selection prior to any fit, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. For the purpose of visualisation, the contributions from simulation have been scaled by a common factor to match the yield in data. The $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ contribution includes the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $ processes. The shaded bands include all a priori uncertainties described in Section 7, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{B}} $ cross section uncertainty estimated from the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation. Only effects on the shape of the distributions are considered. The last bins also contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Jet (left) and btagged jet (right) multiplicity with the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b selection prior to any fit, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. For the purpose of visualisation, the contributions from simulation have been scaled by a common factor to match the yield in data. The $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{X} $ contribution includes the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, and $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $ processes. The shaded bands include all a priori uncertainties described in Section 7, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{B}} $ cross section uncertainty estimated from the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation. Only effects on the shape of the distributions are considered. The last bins also contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Number of jets b tagged at the tight working point with the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b (left) and $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b selections (right) prior to any fit, shown for all lepton channels and years combined. For the purpose of visualisation, the contributions from simulation have been scaled by a common factor to match the yield in data. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{B}} $ cross section uncertainty estimated from the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation. Only effects on the shape of the distributions are considered. The last bins also contain the overflow. The vertical dashed lines indicate the ancillary regions. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Number of jets b tagged at the tight working point with the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b (left) and $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b selections (right) prior to any fit, shown for all lepton channels and years combined. For the purpose of visualisation, the contributions from simulation have been scaled by a common factor to match the yield in data. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{B}} $ cross section uncertainty estimated from the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation. Only effects on the shape of the distributions are considered. The last bins also contain the overflow. The vertical dashed lines indicate the ancillary regions. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Number of jets b tagged at the tight working point with the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b (left) and $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b selections (right) prior to any fit, shown for all lepton channels and years combined. For the purpose of visualisation, the contributions from simulation have been scaled by a common factor to match the yield in data. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7, including the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{B}} $ cross section uncertainty estimated from the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation. Only effects on the shape of the distributions are considered. The last bins also contain the overflow. The vertical dashed lines indicate the ancillary regions. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Structural representation of the neural network used for the assignment of the additional bjet pair. The neural network uses two sets of input variables:\ global event information is connected to three dense network layers, and jetspecific information is connected via convolutional network layers (CNN) and a long shortterm memory (LSTM) cell. The input sequences are concatenated into one dense layer. The output layer consists of six nodes, each representing one of the six possible candidate jet combinations. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Response matrix for $ \Delta R(\smash[t]{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\text{extra}}} ) $ in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space. The $ x $ ($ y $) axes show the generator (detector)level observables. The upper figure includes the ancillary variable, unrolled on the same axis as the detectorlevel observable, so that the binning of the detectorlevel observable, stacked vertically, is repeated twice. For the lower figure, the ancillary variables are projected out to more easily visualize the correspondence between true and reconstructed values. The coloured bins show the finer binning used at reconstructed level (bins split in two), while the numbers show the values one would obtain when using the same binning at the generator and detector level. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Response matrix for $ \Delta R(\smash[t]{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\text{extra}}} ) $ in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space. The $ x $ ($ y $) axes show the generator (detector)level observables. The upper figure includes the ancillary variable, unrolled on the same axis as the detectorlevel observable, so that the binning of the detectorlevel observable, stacked vertically, is repeated twice. For the lower figure, the ancillary variables are projected out to more easily visualize the correspondence between true and reconstructed values. The coloured bins show the finer binning used at reconstructed level (bins split in two), while the numbers show the values one would obtain when using the same binning at the generator and detector level. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Response matrix for $ \Delta R(\smash[t]{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\text{extra}}} ) $ in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space. The $ x $ ($ y $) axes show the generator (detector)level observables. The upper figure includes the ancillary variable, unrolled on the same axis as the detectorlevel observable, so that the binning of the detectorlevel observable, stacked vertically, is repeated twice. For the lower figure, the ancillary variables are projected out to more easily visualize the correspondence between true and reconstructed values. The coloured bins show the finer binning used at reconstructed level (bins split in two), while the numbers show the values one would obtain when using the same binning at the generator and detector level. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Effect of the considered sources of uncertainties on the measurement of the normalized differential cross section of the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space, obtained by combining the impacts of associated nuisance parameters according to Eq. (2). The ordering of the various sources is similar for other observables and in the other phase space regions. The last bin of the distribution is not shown, since it has no associated parameter of interest but is constrained by the other bins as described in Section 6.3. The category ``other theory'' includes b quark fragmentation, top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ modelling, PDF, $ h_{\mathrm{damp}} $, colour reconnection, and underlying event uncertainties. The category ``other experimental'' includes pileup and the integrated luminosity uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Measured inclusive cross sections for each considered phase space, compared to predictions from different $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ simulation approaches shown as coloured symbols. The predictions include uncertainties (horizontal bars) due to the limited number of simulated events. The blue colour is reserved for models using massive b quarks and NLO QCD $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ MEs, while red is used for the inclusive $ \mathrm{t} \bar{\mathrm{t}} $ generators at NLO in QCD with massless b quarks. The right panel shows the ratios between the predicted and measured cross sections, with the black bars showing the relative uncertainties in the measurements. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
The $ \eta $ of the thirdhardest b jet in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ ($ \eta(b_{3}) $) in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space (upper) and the $ \eta $ of the subleading additional b jet ($ \eta(b_{2}^{\text{extra}}) $) in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space (lower) after the fit to data, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. The distributions are shown separately for each ancillary region, as defined in Section 6.1. In the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b ($ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b) phase space the ancillary regions are defined as $ \leq $2, 2, and $ \geq $3 ($ \leq $3 and $ \geq $3) tight btagged jets. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7 after profiling the nuisance parameters in the fit, estimated by sampling the predicted yields from the fit covariance matrix. The blue line shows the sum of the predicted yields for all processes before the fit to data, using the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ samples and its corresponding cross section for the signal. In the ratio panel the expected yields before the fit to data are shown relative to the predicted yields after the fit to data. The last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
The $ \eta $ of the thirdhardest b jet in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ ($ \eta(b_{3}) $) in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space (upper) and the $ \eta $ of the subleading additional b jet ($ \eta(b_{2}^{\text{extra}}) $) in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space (lower) after the fit to data, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. The distributions are shown separately for each ancillary region, as defined in Section 6.1. In the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b ($ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b) phase space the ancillary regions are defined as $ \leq $2, 2, and $ \geq $3 ($ \leq $3 and $ \geq $3) tight btagged jets. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7 after profiling the nuisance parameters in the fit, estimated by sampling the predicted yields from the fit covariance matrix. The blue line shows the sum of the predicted yields for all processes before the fit to data, using the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ samples and its corresponding cross section for the signal. In the ratio panel the expected yields before the fit to data are shown relative to the predicted yields after the fit to data. The last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
The $ \eta $ of the thirdhardest b jet in $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ ($ \eta(b_{3}) $) in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space (upper) and the $ \eta $ of the subleading additional b jet ($ \eta(b_{2}^{\text{extra}}) $) in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space (lower) after the fit to data, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. The distributions are shown separately for each ancillary region, as defined in Section 6.1. In the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b ($ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b) phase space the ancillary regions are defined as $ \leq $2, 2, and $ \geq $3 ($ \leq $3 and $ \geq $3) tight btagged jets. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7 after profiling the nuisance parameters in the fit, estimated by sampling the predicted yields from the fit covariance matrix. The blue line shows the sum of the predicted yields for all processes before the fit to data, using the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ samples and its corresponding cross section for the signal. In the ratio panel the expected yields before the fit to data are shown relative to the predicted yields after the fit to data. The last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
The $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of all light jets in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space (upper) and the azimuthal angle between the hardest remaining light jet and the softest b jet ($ \Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}_{1}^{\text{extra}},\mathrm{b}_{\text{soft}}) $) in the $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light phase space (lower) after the fit to data, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. The distributions are shown separately for each ancillary region, as defined in Section 6.1. In the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light ($ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light ) phase space the ancillary regions are defined as $ \leq $2, 2, and $ \geq $3 ($ \leq $3 and $ \geq $3) tight btagged jets. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7 after profiling the nuisance parameters in the fit, estimated by sampling the predicted yields from the fit covariance matrix. The blue line shows the sum of the predicted yields for all processes before the fit to data, using the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ samples and its corresponding cross section for the signal. In the ratio panel the expected yields before the fit to data are shown relative to the predicted yields after the fit to data. The last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 8a:
The $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of all light jets in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space (upper) and the azimuthal angle between the hardest remaining light jet and the softest b jet ($ \Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}_{1}^{\text{extra}},\mathrm{b}_{\text{soft}}) $) in the $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light phase space (lower) after the fit to data, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. The distributions are shown separately for each ancillary region, as defined in Section 6.1. In the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light ($ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light ) phase space the ancillary regions are defined as $ \leq $2, 2, and $ \geq $3 ($ \leq $3 and $ \geq $3) tight btagged jets. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7 after profiling the nuisance parameters in the fit, estimated by sampling the predicted yields from the fit covariance matrix. The blue line shows the sum of the predicted yields for all processes before the fit to data, using the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ samples and its corresponding cross section for the signal. In the ratio panel the expected yields before the fit to data are shown relative to the predicted yields after the fit to data. The last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 8b:
The $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of all light jets in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space (upper) and the azimuthal angle between the hardest remaining light jet and the softest b jet ($ \Delta\phi(\mathrm{lj}_{1}^{\text{extra}},\mathrm{b}_{\text{soft}}) $) in the $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light phase space (lower) after the fit to data, shown for both lepton channels and all data periods combined. The distributions are shown separately for each ancillary region, as defined in Section 6.1. In the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light ($ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light ) phase space the ancillary regions are defined as $ \leq $2, 2, and $ \geq $3 ($ \leq $3 and $ \geq $3) tight btagged jets. The shaded bands include all uncertainties described in Section 7 after profiling the nuisance parameters in the fit, estimated by sampling the predicted yields from the fit covariance matrix. The blue line shows the sum of the predicted yields for all processes before the fit to data, using the nominal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ samples and its corresponding cross section for the signal. In the ratio panel the expected yields before the fit to data are shown relative to the predicted yields after the fit to data. The last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Correlations between the parameters of interest $ \vec{\mu} $ in the fit for $ \eta(b_{3}) $ in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 10a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 10b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 10c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 10d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 10e:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 10f:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet multiplicity (upper left), the b jet multiplicity (upper right), the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle left, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (middle right, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section prediction obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $, $ N_{\mathrm{b}} $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{{\mathrm{j}} } $, \smash $ H_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b}} $, and $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\mathrm{b}_{3}) $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11e:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 11f:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the inclusive jet $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of b jets (upper right), the $ \eta $ of the third b jet (middle left), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the third b jet (middle right), the $ \eta $ of the fourth b jet (lower left), and the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the fourth b jet (lower right). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12e:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 12f:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the average $ \Delta R $ of all possible $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pairs (upper left), the largest invariant mass of any $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b} $ pair (upper right), the invariant mass (middle left), $ \Delta R $ (middle right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the extra bjet pair. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (upper left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right) of the first extra b jet, the $ \eta $ (middle left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle right) of the second extra b jet, and the inclusive jet multiplicity (lower left). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 13a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (upper left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right) of the first extra b jet, the $ \eta $ (middle left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle right) of the second extra b jet, and the inclusive jet multiplicity (lower left). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 13b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (upper left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right) of the first extra b jet, the $ \eta $ (middle left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle right) of the second extra b jet, and the inclusive jet multiplicity (lower left). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 13c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (upper left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right) of the first extra b jet, the $ \eta $ (middle left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle right) of the second extra b jet, and the inclusive jet multiplicity (lower left). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 13d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (upper left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right) of the first extra b jet, the $ \eta $ (middle left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle right) of the second extra b jet, and the inclusive jet multiplicity (lower left). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 13e:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (upper left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right) of the first extra b jet, the $ \eta $ (middle left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (middle right) of the second extra b jet, and the inclusive jet multiplicity (lower left). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ N_{\text{jets}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the invariant mass (upper left), $ \Delta R $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the additional bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 14a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the invariant mass (upper left), $ \Delta R $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the additional bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 14b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the invariant mass (upper left), $ \Delta R $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the additional bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 14c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the invariant mass (upper left), $ \Delta R $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the additional bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 14d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the invariant mass (upper left), $ \Delta R $ (upper right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (lower left), and $ \eta $ (lower right) of the additional bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ m_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (right) of the first (upper row) and second (lower row) additional b of the bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 15a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (right) of the first (upper row) and second (lower row) additional b of the bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 15b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (right) of the first (upper row) and second (lower row) additional b of the bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 15c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (right) of the first (upper row) and second (lower row) additional b of the bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 15d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b fiducial phase space, for the $ \eta $ (left) and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (right) of the first (upper row) and second (lower row) additional b of the bjet pair not originating from decaying top quarks. The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols. For $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16a:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16b:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16c:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16d:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16e:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 16f:
Predicted and observed normalized differential cross sections in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light (left) and $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light (right) fiducial phase space regions, for the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (upper row), the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the extra light jet (middle row), and the $ \Delta\phi $ between the extra light jet and the softest b jet (lower row). The data are represented by points, with inner (outer) vertical bars indicating the systematic (total) uncertainties, also represented as blue (grey) bands. Cross section predictions obtained at the particle level from different simulation approaches are shown, including their statistical uncertainties, as coloured symbols with different shapes. For $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $, the last bins contain the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions, given the unfolded normalized differential cross sections and their covariances. A lower value indicates a better agreement between prediction and measurement. The dashed line at $ z= $ 2 indicates a $ p $value of 5%. Predictions for which the $ z $ score exceeds the visible range of the figure are marked with arrows ($ \to $). 
png pdf 
Figure A1:
Postfit nuisance parameter values and relative impacts on the fiducial cross section, for the fit of $ \eta $ of the b jet with thirdhighest $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space. The nuisance parameters are defined such that the prefit value is zero with unity uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Figure A2:
Postfit nuisance parameter values and relative impacts on the fiducial cross section, for the fit of $ \eta $ of the subleading extra b jet in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space. The nuisance parameters are defined such that the prefit value is zero with unity uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Figure A3:
Postfit nuisance parameter values and relative impacts on the fiducial cross section, for the fit of $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. The nuisance parameters are defined such that the prefit value is zero with unity uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Figure A4:
Postfit nuisance parameter values and relative impacts on the fiducial cross section, for the fit of $ \Delta\phi $ between leading light jet and softest b jet in the $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. The nuisance parameters are defined such that the prefit value is zero with unity uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Figure B1:
Effect of the considered sources of uncertainties on the measurement of the normalized differential cross section of the $ \eta $ of the b jet with thirdhighest $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space, obtained by combining the impacts of associated nuisance parameters. The last bin of the distribution is not shown, since it has no associated parameter of interest but is constrained by the other bins. The category ``other theory'' includes b quark fragmentation, top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ modelling, PDF, $ h_{\mathrm{damp}} $, colour reconnection, and underlying event uncertainties. The category ``other experimental'' includes pileup and the integrated luminosity uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure B2:
Effect of the considered sources of uncertainties on the measurement of the normalized differential cross section of the $ \eta $ of the subleading extra b jet in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space, obtained by combining the impacts of associated nuisance parameters. The last bin of the distribution is not shown, since it has no associated parameter of interest but is constrained by the other bins. The category ``other theory'' includes b quark fragmentation, top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ modelling, PDF, $ h_{\mathrm{damp}} $, colour reconnection, and underlying event uncertainties. The category ``other experimental'' includes pileup and the integrated luminosity uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure B3:
Effect of the considered sources of uncertainties on the measurement of the normalized differential cross section of the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space, obtained by combining the impacts of associated nuisance parameters. The last bin of the distribution is not shown, since it has no associated parameter of interest but is constrained by the other bins. The category ``other theory'' includes b quark fragmentation, top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ modelling, PDF, $ h_{\mathrm{damp}} $, colour reconnection, and underlying event uncertainties. The category ``other experimental'' includes pileup and the integrated luminosity uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure B4:
Effect of the considered sources of uncertainties on the measurement of the normalized differential cross section of the $ \Delta\phi $ between leading light jet and softest b jet in the $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light phase space, obtained by combining the impacts of associated nuisance parameters. The last bin of the distribution is not shown, since it has no associated parameter of interest but is constrained by the other bins. The category ``other theory'' includes b quark fragmentation, top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ modelling, PDF, $ h_{\mathrm{damp}} $, colour reconnection, and underlying event uncertainties. The category ``other experimental'' includes pileup and the integrated luminosity uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure C1:
Correlations between the parameters of interest $ \vec{\mu} $ in the fit of the $ \eta $ of the subleading extra b jet in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $4b phase space. 
png pdf 
Figure C2:
Correlations between the parameters of interest $ \vec{\mu} $ in the fit of the $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. 
png pdf 
Figure C3:
Correlations between the parameters of interest $ \vec{\mu} $ in the fit of the $ \Delta\phi $ between leading light jet and softest b jet in the $ \geq $7 jets: $ \geq $4b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. 
png pdf 
Figure D1:
Ratio of normalized differential cross section predictions of the POWHEG+OL+P8 $\mathrm{t\bar{t}b\bar{b}}$ 4FS modeling approach with different $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $ scale settings relative to the measured normalized differential cross sections for the number of jets (upper) and $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of jets (lower) in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. Variations of the $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ ($ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $) scale relative to the nominal scale setting are shown in orange (purple). The last bin in the distributions contains the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure D1a:
Ratio of normalized differential cross section predictions of the POWHEG+OL+P8 $\mathrm{t\bar{t}b\bar{b}}$ 4FS modeling approach with different $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $ scale settings relative to the measured normalized differential cross sections for the number of jets (upper) and $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of jets (lower) in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. Variations of the $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ ($ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $) scale relative to the nominal scale setting are shown in orange (purple). The last bin in the distributions contains the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure D1b:
Ratio of normalized differential cross section predictions of the POWHEG+OL+P8 $\mathrm{t\bar{t}b\bar{b}}$ 4FS modeling approach with different $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $ scale settings relative to the measured normalized differential cross sections for the number of jets (upper) and $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of jets (lower) in the $ \geq $5 jets: $ \geq $3b phase space. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. Variations of the $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ ($ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $) scale relative to the nominal scale setting are shown in orange (purple). The last bin in the distributions contains the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure D2:
Ratio of normalized differential cross section predictions of the POWHEG+OL+P8} $\mathrm{t\bar{t}b\bar{b}}$ 4FS modeling approach with different $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $ scale settings relative to the measured normalized differential cross sections for the extra light jet (upper) and $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (lower) in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. Variations of the $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ ($ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $) scale relative to the nominal scale setting are shown in orange (purple). The last bin in the distributions contains the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure D2a:
Ratio of normalized differential cross section predictions of the POWHEG+OL+P8} $\mathrm{t\bar{t}b\bar{b}}$ 4FS modeling approach with different $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $ scale settings relative to the measured normalized differential cross sections for the extra light jet (upper) and $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (lower) in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. Variations of the $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ ($ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $) scale relative to the nominal scale setting are shown in orange (purple). The last bin in the distributions contains the overflow. 
png pdf 
Figure D2b:
Ratio of normalized differential cross section predictions of the POWHEG+OL+P8} $\mathrm{t\bar{t}b\bar{b}}$ 4FS modeling approach with different $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $ scale settings relative to the measured normalized differential cross sections for the extra light jet (upper) and $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ of light jets (lower) in the $ \geq $6 jets: $ \geq $3b, $ \geq $3 light phase space. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. The systematic (total) uncertainties of the measurement are represented as grey (blue) bands. Variations of the $ \mu_{\mathrm{R}} $ ($ \mu_{\mathrm{F}} $) scale relative to the nominal scale setting are shown in orange (purple). The last bin in the distributions contains the overflow. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Generator settings for different modeling approaches of $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ production. The top quark mass value is set to $ m_{\mathrm{t}} = $ 172.5 GeV for all generator setups, and for the generator setups using massive b quarks, the b quark mass value is set to $ m_{\mathrm{b}} = $ 4.75 GeV. In the scale settings, $ H_{\mathrm{T}} $ corresponds to the scalar $ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ sum, $ H_{\mathrm{T}} = \sum_{i=\mathrm{t},\bar{\mathrm{t}},\mathrm{b},\bar{\mathrm{b}},\mathrm{g}} m_{\mathrm{T},i} $, and \smash$ m_{\mathrm{T},i}=\sqrt{\smash[b]{m_i^2+p_{\mathrm{T},i}^2}} $ is the transverse mass. For generators setups using POWHEG the $ h_{\mathrm{damp}} $ value is specified. Other generator setups do not use this parameter and are marked with ($ \text{} $). 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Generator settings for various minor background samples simulated with POWHEG [346166] or MadGraph5\_aMC@NLO [32]. The ``Group'' column refers to the grouping of processes in the maximum likelihood fits. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Description of all measured observables for each of the four fiducial phase space regions. Observables marked as ($ \checkmark^\ast $) rely on the definition of additional b jets, and do not fully correspond to the 6j4b fiducial phase space defined at the particle level, but also require the presence of b jets without top (anti)quarks in their simulated history. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
Summary of the systematic uncertainty sources in the inclusive and differential $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ cross section measurements. The first column lists the source of the uncertainty. The second (third) column indicates the treatment of correlations of the uncertainties between different datataking periods (processes), where $ \checkmark $ means fully correlated, $ \sim $ means partially correlated (i.e., contains subsources that are either fully correlated or uncorrelated), $ \times $ means uncorrelated, and $ \text{} $ means not applicable. 
png pdf 
Table 5:
Contributions of the considered sources of uncertainty to the total uncertainty in the inclusive cross sections. For each group of uncertainty sources, the impacts of the corresponding nuisance parameters on the total cross section are combined, taking into account their correlation in the fit. The numbers show relative uncertainties (in %). The statistical uncertainty is obtained as the difference, in quadrature, between the total uncertainty and the sum of all systematic uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Table 6:
Measured and predicted inclusive cross sections in the four considered phase space regions (in fb). 
png pdf 
Table E1:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions in the 5j3b phase space, given the unfolded data and covariance matrix. For the determination of the $ z $ score, only the measurement uncertainties are considered. 
png pdf 
Table E2:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions in the 6j4b phase space, given the unfolded data and covariance matrix. For the determination of the $ z $ score, only the measurement uncertainties are considered. 
png pdf 
Table E3:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions in the 6j4b phase space of the observables related to the $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\text{extra}} $ pair, given the unfolded data and covariance matrix. For the determination of the $ z $ score, only the measurement uncertainties are considered. 
png pdf 
Table E4:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions in the 6j4b phase space of the observables related to the $ \mathrm{b}\mathrm{b}^{\text{add.}} $ pair, given the unfolded data and covariance matrix. For the determination of the $ z $ score, only the measurement uncertainties are considered. 
png pdf 
Table E5:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions in the 6j3b3l phase space, given the unfolded data and covariance matrix. For the determination of the $ z $ score, only the measurement uncertainties are considered. 
png pdf 
Table E6:
Observed $ z $ score for each of the theoretical predictions in the 7j4b3l phase space, given the unfolded data and covariance matrix. For the determination of the $ z $ score, only the measurement uncertainties are considered. 
Summary 
Measurements of inclusive and normalized differential cross sections of the associated production of top quarkantiquark and bottom quarkantiquark pairs, $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $, for events containing an electron or a muon, have been presented. These measurements use protonproton collision data recorded by the CMS detector at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{1} $. The inclusive cross sections are measured in four fiducial phase space regions requiring different jet, b jet, and light jet multiplicities. With total uncertainties of 617%, depending on the phase space, these are the most precise measurements of the $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ cross section to date. The uncertainties are dominated by systematic sources, with the leading uncertainties originating from the calibration of the b tagging and of the jet energy scale, and from the choice of renormalization scale in the signal $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ and background $ \mathrm{t} \bar{\mathrm{t}} $ processes. In most cases, the measured inclusive cross sections exceed the predictions with the chosen generator settings. The only exception is when using a particular choice of dynamic renormalization scale, $ \smash[b]{\mu_{\mathrm{R}}=\frac12 \prod_{i=\mathrm{t},\bar{\mathrm{t}},\mathrm{b},\bar{\mathrm{b}}} m_{\mathrm{T},i}^{1/4}} $, where $ \smash{m_{\mathrm{T},i}^2=m_i^2+p_{\mathrm{T},i}^2} $ are the transverse masses of top and bottom quarks. Differential cross section measurements are performed as a function of several observables in the aforementioned phase space regions. These observables mainly target b jets as well as additional light jets produced in association with the top quark pairs. In the phase space containing events with at least six jets, of which at least four are b tagged, the additional bjet radiation is probed with two different approaches. The first approach uses observables defined purely at the particle level, without any reference to the top quark decay chains, by selecting the two b jets with the smallest angular separation. The second approach uses explicitly the b jets at the generator level that do not originate from top quark decays and identifies those jets at the detector level with a neural network discriminant. The differential measurements have relative uncertainties in the range of 250%, depending on the phase space and the observable. The results are compared to the predictions of several event generator setups, and it is found that none of them simultaneously describe all measured distributions in the various phase space regions. In the more inclusive phase space with five jets and three b jets, the agreement between data and predictions is generally poor, while in the phase space with six jets and four b jets, corresponding to the case in which the two additional b jets in $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ production are resolved, most predictions are compatible with the data within the larger experimental uncertainties. These measurements will help to further tune and refine the theoretical predictions and better assess the validity of the theoretical uncertainties estimated from the various $ {\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\bar{\mathrm{b}} $ event generators. 
References  
1  F. Buccioni, S. Kallweit, S. Pozzorini, and M. F. Zoller  NLO QCD predictions for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production in association with a light jet at the LHC  JHEP 12 (2019) 015  1907.13624 
2  T. Ježo, J. M. Lindert, N. Moretti, and S. Pozzorini  New NLOPS predictions for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}}$ + $\mathrm{b} $jet production at the LHC  EPJC 78 (2018) 502  1802.00426 
3  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying into $ \mathrm{b} \overline{\mathrm{b}} $ produced in association with top quarks decaying hadronically in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 05 (2016) 160  1604.03812 
4  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for the standard model Higgs boson produced in association with top quarks and decaying into a $ \mathrm{b} \overline{\mathrm{b}} $ pair in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PRD 97 (2018) 072016  1712.08895 
5  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of Higgs boson production in association with a top quark pair at the LHC with the ATLAS detector  PLB 784 (2018) 173  1806.00425 
6  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ production in the alljet final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 06 (2018) 101  CMSHIG17022 1803.06986 
7  CMS Collaboration  Observation of $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ production  PRL 120 (2018) 231801  CMSHIG17035 1804.02610 
8  CMS Collaboration  Search for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ production in the $ \mathrm{H}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ decay channel with leptonic $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ decays in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 03 (2019) 026  CMSHIG17026 1804.03682 
9  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for fourtopquark production in the singlelepton and oppositesign dilepton final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  PRD 99 (2019) 052009  1811.02305 
10  ATLAS Collaboration  Evidence for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ production in the multilepton final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 80 (2020) 1085  2007.14858 
11  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ production cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 11 (2021) 118  2106.11683 
12  CMS Collaboration  Search for standard model production of four top quarks in the lepton+jets channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JHEP 11 (2014) 154  CMSTOP13012 1409.7339 
13  CMS Collaboration  Search for standard model production of four top quarks with samesign and multilepton final states in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 78 (2018) 140  CMSTOP17009 1710.10614 
14  CMS Collaboration  Search for standard model production of four top quarks in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 772 (2017) 336  CMSTOP16016 1702.06164 
15  CMS Collaboration  Search for the production of four top quarks in the singlelepton and oppositesign dilepton final states in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 11 (2019) 082  CMSTOP17019 1906.02805 
16  CMS Collaboration  Search for production of four top quarks in final states with samesign or multiple leptons in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 80 (2020) 75  CMSTOP18003 1908.06463 
17  CMS Collaboration  Evidence for fourtop quark production in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 844 (2023) 138076  CMSTOP21005 2303.03864 
18  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of fourtopquark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector  EPJC 83 (2023) 496  2303.15061 
19  CMS Collaboration  Observation of four top quark production in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  Submitted to PLB, 2023  CMSTOP22013 2305.13439 
20  Q.H. Cao, S.L. Chen, and Y. Liu  Probing Higgs width and top quark Yukawa coupling from $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $ and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} $ productions  PRD 95 (2017) 053004  1602.01934 
21  Q.H. Cao et al.  Limiting top quarkHiggs boson interaction and Higgsboson width from multitop productions  PRD 99 (2019) 113003  1901.04567 
22  M. Worek  Nexttoleading order QCD corrections to $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production at the LHC  in Proc. 33rd Int. Conf. of Theoretical Physics on Matter to the Deepest: Ustroń, Poland, 2009 Acta Phys. Pol. B 40 (2009) 2937 
0910.4080 
23  G. Bevilacqua et al.  Assault on the NLO wishlist: $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $  JHEP 09 (2009) 109  0907.4723 
24  A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and S. Pozzorini  NLO QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}+\mathrm{X} $ at the LHC  PRL 103 (2009) 012002  0905.0110 
25  A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and S. Pozzorini  NLO QCD corrections to $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production at the LHC: 2. Full hadronic results  JHEP 03 (2010) 021  1001.4006 
26  M. Worek  On the nexttoleading order QCD $ K $factor for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production at the Tevatron  JHEP 02 (2012) 043  1112.4325 
27  A. Denner, J.N. Lang, and M. Pellen  Full NLO QCD corrections to offshell $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production  PRD 104 (2021) 056018  2008.00918 
28  G. Bevilacqua et al.  $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ at the LHC: on the size of corrections and bjet definitions  JHEP 08 (2021) 008  2105.08404 
29  S. Höche et al.  Nexttoleading order QCD predictions for topquark pair production with up to two jets merged with a parton shower  PLB 748 (2015) 74  1402.6293 
30  M. V. Garzelli, A. Kardos, and Z. Trócsányi  Hadroproduction of $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ final states at LHC: predictions at NLO accuracy matched with parton shower  JHEP 03 (2015) 083  1408.0266 
31  S. Höche et al.  Nexttoleading order QCD predictions for topquark pair production with up to three jets  EPJC 77 (2017) 145  1607.06934 
32  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 
33  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
34  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi  A positiveweight nexttoleadingorder Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction  JHEP 09 (2007) 126  0707.3088 
35  F. Cascioli et al.  NLO matching for $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production with massive bquarks  PLB 734 (2014) 210  1309.5912 
36  G. Bevilacqua, M. V. Garzelli, and A. Kardos  $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ hadroproduction with massive bottom quarks with \textscPowHel  1709.06915  
37  ATLAS Collaboration  Study of heavyflavor quarks produced in association with topquark pairs at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector  PRD 89 (2014) 072012  1304.6386 
38  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of fiducial crosssections for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with one or two additional bjets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector  EPJC 76 (2016) 11  1508.06868 
39  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurements of inclusive and differential fiducial crosssections of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with additional heavyflavour jets in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 04 (2019) 046  1811.12113 
40  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with additional jet activity, including b quark jets, in the dilepton decay channel using pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 76 (2016) 379  CMSTOP12041 1510.03072 
41  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the cross section ratio $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}}/\sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{jj}} $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PLB 746 (2015) 132  CMSTOP13010 1411.5621 
42  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross sections in association with b jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 776 (2018) 355  CMSTOP16010 1705.10141 
43  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}} $ production cross section in the alljet final state in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 803 (2020) 135285  CMSTOP18011 1909.05306 
44  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the cross section for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with additional jets and b jets in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2020) 125  CMSTOP18002 2003.06467 
45  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of the cross section for top quark pair production with additional charm jets using dileptonic final states in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 820 (2021) 136565  CMSTOP20003 2012.09225 
46  CMS Collaboration  HEPData record for this analysis  link  
47  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
48  CMS Tracker Group  The CMS Phase1 pixel detector upgrade  JINST 16 (2021) P02027  2012.14304 
49  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS Level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
50  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
51  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
52  GEANT 4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
53  T. Ježo and P. Nason  On the treatment of resonances in nexttoleading order calculations matched to a parton shower  JHEP 12 (2015) 065  1509.09071 
54  F. Buccioni et al.  OpenLoops 2  EPJC 79 (2019) 866  1907.13071 
55  M. Bähr et al.  HERWIG++ physics and manual  EPJC 58 (2008) 639  0803.0883 
56  J. Bellm et al.  HERWIG 7.0/ HERWIG++ 3.0 release note  EPJC 76 (2016) 196  1512.01178 
57  CMS Collaboration  Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 81 (2021) 312  CMSGEN19001 2011.03422 
58  T. Gleisberg et al.  Event generation with SHERPA 1.1  JHEP 02 (2009) 007  0811.4622 
59  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 
60  N. Kidonakis  Top quark production  in Proc. Helmholtz International Summer School on Physics of Heavy Quarks and Hadrons, Dubna, Russia, 2013 DESYPROC201303 
1311.0283 
61  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
62  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
63  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 
64  S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re  NLO singletop production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $ and $ t $channel contributions  JHEP 09 (2009) 111  0907.4076 
65  E. Re  Singletop $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{t} $channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method  EPJC 71 (2011) 1547  1009.2450 
66  H. B. Hartanto, B. Jäger, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth  Higgs boson production in association with top quarks in the POWHEG box  PRD 91 (2015) 094003  1501.04498 
67  P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk  Automatic spinentangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations  JHEP 03 (2013) 015  1212.3460 
68  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 
69  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
70  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
71  Y. Li and F. Petriello  Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in the framework of the FEWZ simulation code  PRD 86 (2012) 094034  1208.5967 
72  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
73  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the PhaseII upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

74  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
75  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 
76  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
77  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
78  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FASTJET user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
79  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
80  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 1712.07158 
81  E. Bols et al.  Jet flavour classification using DeepJet  JINST 15 (2020) P12012  2008.10519 
82  CMS Collaboration  Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from protonproton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2023005, 2023 CDS 

83  M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam  Pileup subtraction using jet areas  PLB 659 (2008) 119  0707.1378 
84  CMS Collaboration  Simulation of the silicon strip tracker preamplifier in early 2016 data  CMS Detector Performance Note CMSDP2020045, 2020 CDS 

85  Y. LeCun et al.  Handwritten digit recognition with a backpropagation network  in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS'89): Denver CO, USA, 1989 link 

86  S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber  Long shortterm memory  Neural Comput. 9 (1997) 1735  
87  F. Chollet et al.  keras: Deep learning for humans  link  
88  M. Abadi et al.  TensorFlow: largescale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems  1603.04467  
89  D. P. Kingma and J. Ba  Adam: a method for stochastic optimization  in Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Learning Representations, San Diego CA, USA, 2015, [ICLR 201 (2015) 5]  1412.6980 
90  N. Srivastava et al.  Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting  J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15 (2014) 1929  
91  S. Wertz  moofit: a package for smooth binned likelihood fits  link  
92  J. Bradbury et al.  jax: autograd and xla  link  
93  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 
94  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMSPASLUM17004 
CMSPASLUM17004 
95  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
96  M. Czakon et al.  Toppair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW  JHEP 10 (2017) 186  1705.04105 
97  S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjöstrand  Effects of color reconnection on $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ final states at the LHC  JHEP 11 (2014) 043  1407.6653 
98  J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands  String formation beyond leading colour  JHEP 08 (2015) 003  1505.01681 
99  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of bquark fragmentation properties in jets using the decay $ {{\mathrm{B}^{\pm}}\to\mathrm{J}/\psi\mathrm{K^{\pm}}} $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  JHEP 12 (2021) 131  2108.11650 
100  R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston  Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples  Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219  
101  J. S. Conway  Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra  in Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT ): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011 link 
1103.0354 
102  R. D. Cousins, J. T. Linnemann, and J. Tucker  Evaluation of three methods for calculating statistical significance when incorporating a systematic uncertainty into a test of the backgroundonly hypothesis for a Poisson process  NIM A 595 (2008) 480  physics/0702156 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 