CMSTOP23003 ; CERNEP2024005  
Review of top quark mass measurements in CMS  
CMS Collaboration  
3 March 2024  
Submitted to Physics Reports  
Abstract: The top quark mass is one of the most intriguing parameters of the standard model (SM). Its value indicates a Yukawa coupling close to unity, and the resulting strong ties to the Higgs physics make the top quark mass a crucial ingredient for understanding essential aspects of the electroweak sector of the SM. While it is such an important parameter of the SM, its measurement and interpretation in terms of the Lagrangian parameter are challenging. The CMS Collaboration has performed multiple measurements of the top quark mass, addressing these challenges from different angles: highly precise `direct' measurements, using the top quark decay products, as well as `indirect' measurements aiming at accurate interpretations in terms of the Lagrangian parameter. Recent mass measurements using Lorentzboosted top quarks are particularly promising, opening a new avenue of measurements based on top quark decay products contained in a single particle jet, with superior prospects for accurate theoretical interpretations. Moreover, dedicated studies of the dominant uncertainties in the modelling of the signal processes have been performed. This review offers the first comprehensive overview of these measurements performed by the CMS Collaboration using the data collected at centreofmass energies of 7, 8, and 13 TeV.  
Links: eprint arXiv:2403.01313 [hepex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Summary of CMS measurements of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section as a function of $ \sqrt{s} $ compared to the NNLO QCD calculation complemented with NNLL resummation (TOP++ v2.0 [77]). The theory band represents uncertainties due to the renormalisation and factorisation scales, parton distribution functions, and the strong coupling. The measurements and the theoretical calculation are quoted at $ m_{\mathrm{t}}= $ 172.5 GeV. Measurements made at the same $ \sqrt{s} $ are slightly offset for clarity. An enlarged inset is included to highlight the difference between 13 and 13.6 TeV predictions and results. Figure taken from Ref. [82]. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Summary of single top quark production cross section measurements by CMS. Theoretical calculations for $ t $channel, $ s $channel, and Wassociated production are courtesy of N. Kidonakis [88,89]. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Reconstructed top quark mass resolution with and without the HITFIT/KINFITTER kinematic reconstruction in the lepton+jets (left) and alljets (right) channels. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The HITFIT/KINFITTER reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [61,62,62]. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Reconstructed top quark mass resolution with and without the HITFIT/KINFITTER kinematic reconstruction in the lepton+jets (left) and alljets (right) channels. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The HITFIT/KINFITTER reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [61,62,62]. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Reconstructed top quark mass resolution with and without the HITFIT/KINFITTER kinematic reconstruction in the lepton+jets (left) and alljets (right) channels. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The HITFIT/KINFITTER reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [61,62,62]. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ mass bias (left) and resolution (right) with and without the HITFIT kinematic reconstruction in the lepton+jets channel, as functions of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass at generator level. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The HITFIT reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [61]. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ mass bias (left) and resolution (right) with and without the HITFIT kinematic reconstruction in the lepton+jets channel, as functions of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass at generator level. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The HITFIT reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [61]. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ mass bias (left) and resolution (right) with and without the HITFIT kinematic reconstruction in the lepton+jets channel, as functions of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass at generator level. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The HITFIT reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [61]. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ mass bias (left) and resolution (right) with and without the KINFITTER kinematic reconstruction in the alljet channel, as functions of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass at generator level. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The KINFITTER reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [62]. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ mass bias (left) and resolution (right) with and without the KINFITTER kinematic reconstruction in the alljet channel, as functions of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass at generator level. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The KINFITTER reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [62]. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ mass bias (left) and resolution (right) with and without the KINFITTER kinematic reconstruction in the alljet channel, as functions of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass at generator level. Multiple reconstruction options with and without kinematic fit are represented by lines of different colour, and ``correct'' denotes the correct partonjet assignments as discussed in the text. The KINFITTER reconstruction with a cutoff on $ P_{\text{gof}} $ is used for measuring the top quark mass [62]. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
The reconstruction efficiencies for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue circles) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange squares) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system. The averaged efficiencies are 92 (96)% for the FKR (LKR). The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
The reconstruction efficiencies for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue circles) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange squares) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system. The averaged efficiencies are 92 (96)% for the FKR (LKR). The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
The reconstruction efficiencies for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue circles) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange squares) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system. The averaged efficiencies are 92 (96)% for the FKR (LKR). The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
The reconstruction efficiencies for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue circles) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange squares) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the reconstructed $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system. The averaged efficiencies are 92 (96)% for the FKR (LKR). The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
The biases (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown for the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system, as a function of the same variables at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
The biases (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown for the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system, as a function of the same variables at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
The biases (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown for the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system, as a function of the same variables at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 7c:
The biases (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown for the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system, as a function of the same variables at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
The resolutions (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 8a:
The resolutions (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 8b:
The resolutions (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 8c:
The resolutions (solid lines), as defined in the text, for the full kinematic reconstruction (FKR, blue) and loose kinematic reconstruction (LKR, orange) are shown as functions of the invariant mass, transverse momentum, and rapidity of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system at the generator level. The corresponding partongeneratorlevel distributions, normalised to unit area, for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production are represented by the grey shaded areas, shown on the logarithmic scale (right $ y $ axis). The POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulated samples are used. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
The correlation between $ \rho_{\text{gen}} $ and $ \rho_{\text{reco}} $ is shown for the regression NN reconstruction method (left). The $ \rho_{\text{reco}} $ resolution, defined in the text, as a function of $ \rho_{\text{gen}} $ (right) for the full (blue line) and loose (orange line) kinematic reconstructions and the regression NN (red line) methods. The number of events per bin in the left plot is shown by the colour scale. Figure taken from Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
The correlation between $ \rho_{\text{gen}} $ and $ \rho_{\text{reco}} $ is shown for the regression NN reconstruction method (left). The $ \rho_{\text{reco}} $ resolution, defined in the text, as a function of $ \rho_{\text{gen}} $ (right) for the full (blue line) and loose (orange line) kinematic reconstructions and the regression NN (red line) methods. The number of events per bin in the left plot is shown by the colour scale. Figure taken from Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
The correlation between $ \rho_{\text{gen}} $ and $ \rho_{\text{reco}} $ is shown for the regression NN reconstruction method (left). The $ \rho_{\text{reco}} $ resolution, defined in the text, as a function of $ \rho_{\text{gen}} $ (right) for the full (blue line) and loose (orange line) kinematic reconstructions and the regression NN (red line) methods. The number of events per bin in the left plot is shown by the colour scale. Figure taken from Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
Distributions of the jet multiplicity $ N_{\text{Jets}} $ [134] (left) and the jet substructure observable $ \Delta R_{\mathrm{g}} $, the angle between the groomed subjets, normalised to the number of jets [135] (right) in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events at 13 TeV (black symbols). The data are compared to the MC simulation setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different style and colour. The uncertainty bands include ME scale, MEPS matching, ISR, and FSR uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 10a:
Distributions of the jet multiplicity $ N_{\text{Jets}} $ [134] (left) and the jet substructure observable $ \Delta R_{\mathrm{g}} $, the angle between the groomed subjets, normalised to the number of jets [135] (right) in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events at 13 TeV (black symbols). The data are compared to the MC simulation setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different style and colour. The uncertainty bands include ME scale, MEPS matching, ISR, and FSR uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 10b:
Distributions of the jet multiplicity $ N_{\text{Jets}} $ [134] (left) and the jet substructure observable $ \Delta R_{\mathrm{g}} $, the angle between the groomed subjets, normalised to the number of jets [135] (right) in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events at 13 TeV (black symbols). The data are compared to the MC simulation setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different style and colour. The uncertainty bands include ME scale, MEPS matching, ISR, and FSR uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Left: Ratio of data to POWHEG+PYTHIA8 (early Run2) predictions for top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the dilepton (red symbols) and lepton+jets (blue symbols) channels along with an exponential fit (solid line). Right: Distribution of the transverse momentum of hadronically decaying top quark as measured by CMS [139] (black symbols) compared to MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles. The uncertainty bands include ME scale, MEPS matching, ISR, and FSR uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 11a:
Left: Ratio of data to POWHEG+PYTHIA8 (early Run2) predictions for top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the dilepton (red symbols) and lepton+jets (blue symbols) channels along with an exponential fit (solid line). Right: Distribution of the transverse momentum of hadronically decaying top quark as measured by CMS [139] (black symbols) compared to MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles. The uncertainty bands include ME scale, MEPS matching, ISR, and FSR uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 11b:
Left: Ratio of data to POWHEG+PYTHIA8 (early Run2) predictions for top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ in the dilepton (red symbols) and lepton+jets (blue symbols) channels along with an exponential fit (solid line). Right: Distribution of the transverse momentum of hadronically decaying top quark as measured by CMS [139] (black symbols) compared to MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles. The uncertainty bands include ME scale, MEPS matching, ISR, and FSR uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
Left: The pseudorapidity density of charged hadrons, $ \mathrm{d} N_{\text{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta $, using data from about 170\,000 MB events from inelastic pp collisions using both hit pairs and reconstructed tracks by the CMS experiment [142] at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. Right: The chargedparticle $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{sum}} $ density in the azimuthal region transverse to the direction of the leading charged particle as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading charged particle, $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{max}} $, measured by the CMS experiment [143] at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. The predictions of the CMS UE tunes from Run1 to Run2 legacy evaluated at 13 TeV are compared with data. The coloured bands represent the variations of the tunes, and error bars on the data points represent the total experimental uncertainty in the data including the model uncertainty. Both distributions are normalised to the total number of events. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Left: The pseudorapidity density of charged hadrons, $ \mathrm{d} N_{\text{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta $, using data from about 170\,000 MB events from inelastic pp collisions using both hit pairs and reconstructed tracks by the CMS experiment [142] at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. Right: The chargedparticle $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{sum}} $ density in the azimuthal region transverse to the direction of the leading charged particle as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading charged particle, $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{max}} $, measured by the CMS experiment [143] at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. The predictions of the CMS UE tunes from Run1 to Run2 legacy evaluated at 13 TeV are compared with data. The coloured bands represent the variations of the tunes, and error bars on the data points represent the total experimental uncertainty in the data including the model uncertainty. Both distributions are normalised to the total number of events. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Left: The pseudorapidity density of charged hadrons, $ \mathrm{d} N_{\text{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta $, using data from about 170\,000 MB events from inelastic pp collisions using both hit pairs and reconstructed tracks by the CMS experiment [142] at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. Right: The chargedparticle $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{sum}} $ density in the azimuthal region transverse to the direction of the leading charged particle as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the leading charged particle, $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{max}} $, measured by the CMS experiment [143] at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV. The predictions of the CMS UE tunes from Run1 to Run2 legacy evaluated at 13 TeV are compared with data. The coloured bands represent the variations of the tunes, and error bars on the data points represent the total experimental uncertainty in the data including the model uncertainty. Both distributions are normalised to the total number of events. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
Left: Normalised differential cross section as a function of $ \sum p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of charged particles in the UE in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events, compared to the predictions of different models. The data (coloured boxes) are compared to the nominal POWHEG+PYTHIA8 predictions and to the expectations obtained from varied $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{ISR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ or $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{FSR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setups (markers). In the case of the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setup, the error bar represents the envelope obtained by varying the main parameters of the CEUP8M2T4 tune, according to their uncertainties. This envelope includes the variation of the CR model, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{ISR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{FSR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, the $ h_{\text{damp}} $ parameter, and the $ \mu_{\mathrm{r}} $/$ \mu_{\mathrm{f}} $ scales at the ME level. Right: The different panels show the ratio between each model tested and the data. The shaded (hatched) band represents the total (statistical) uncertainty of the data, while the error bars represent either the total uncertainty of the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setup, or the statistical uncertainty of the other MC simulation setups. Figures taken from Ref. [144]. 
png pdf 
Figure 13a:
Left: Normalised differential cross section as a function of $ \sum p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of charged particles in the UE in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events, compared to the predictions of different models. The data (coloured boxes) are compared to the nominal POWHEG+PYTHIA8 predictions and to the expectations obtained from varied $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{ISR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ or $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{FSR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setups (markers). In the case of the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setup, the error bar represents the envelope obtained by varying the main parameters of the CEUP8M2T4 tune, according to their uncertainties. This envelope includes the variation of the CR model, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{ISR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{FSR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, the $ h_{\text{damp}} $ parameter, and the $ \mu_{\mathrm{r}} $/$ \mu_{\mathrm{f}} $ scales at the ME level. Right: The different panels show the ratio between each model tested and the data. The shaded (hatched) band represents the total (statistical) uncertainty of the data, while the error bars represent either the total uncertainty of the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setup, or the statistical uncertainty of the other MC simulation setups. Figures taken from Ref. [144]. 
png pdf 
Figure 13b:
Left: Normalised differential cross section as a function of $ \sum p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of charged particles in the UE in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events, compared to the predictions of different models. The data (coloured boxes) are compared to the nominal POWHEG+PYTHIA8 predictions and to the expectations obtained from varied $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{ISR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ or $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{FSR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setups (markers). In the case of the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setup, the error bar represents the envelope obtained by varying the main parameters of the CEUP8M2T4 tune, according to their uncertainties. This envelope includes the variation of the CR model, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{ISR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}^{\text{FSR}}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, the $ h_{\text{damp}} $ parameter, and the $ \mu_{\mathrm{r}} $/$ \mu_{\mathrm{f}} $ scales at the ME level. Right: The different panels show the ratio between each model tested and the data. The shaded (hatched) band represents the total (statistical) uncertainty of the data, while the error bars represent either the total uncertainty of the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 setup, or the statistical uncertainty of the other MC simulation setups. Figures taken from Ref. [144]. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
Measured distribution of the pull angle in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events taken at 8 TeV recorded by ATLAS [154] (points with vertical error bars) compared to MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles. The uncertainty bands illustrate the uncertainties resulting from colour reconnection effects, as estimated by variations described in the main text. The same variations are applied in CMS top quark mass measurements. 
png pdf 
Figure 15:
Normalised $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ differential cross section for the pull angle between jets from the W boson in hadronic top quark decays, calculated from the charged constituents of the jets, measured by the ATLAS experiment using $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data [154] to investigate colour flow (left). The predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8 using different tune configurations are compared with data. The statistical uncertainties in the predictions are represented by the coloured band and the vertical bars. The coloured band and error bars on the data points represent the total experimental uncertainty in the data. The invariant mass reconstructed from the hadronically decaying top quark candidates at the generator level (right). The coloured band and the vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the predictions. Figures adapted from Ref. [152]. 
png pdf 
Figure 15a:
Normalised $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ differential cross section for the pull angle between jets from the W boson in hadronic top quark decays, calculated from the charged constituents of the jets, measured by the ATLAS experiment using $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data [154] to investigate colour flow (left). The predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8 using different tune configurations are compared with data. The statistical uncertainties in the predictions are represented by the coloured band and the vertical bars. The coloured band and error bars on the data points represent the total experimental uncertainty in the data. The invariant mass reconstructed from the hadronically decaying top quark candidates at the generator level (right). The coloured band and the vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the predictions. Figures adapted from Ref. [152]. 
png pdf 
Figure 15b:
Normalised $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ differential cross section for the pull angle between jets from the W boson in hadronic top quark decays, calculated from the charged constituents of the jets, measured by the ATLAS experiment using $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data [154] to investigate colour flow (left). The predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA8 using different tune configurations are compared with data. The statistical uncertainties in the predictions are represented by the coloured band and the vertical bars. The coloured band and error bars on the data points represent the total experimental uncertainty in the data. The invariant mass reconstructed from the hadronically decaying top quark candidates at the generator level (right). The coloured band and the vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the predictions. Figures adapted from Ref. [152]. 
png pdf 
Figure 16:
Distribution of the b quark fragmentation function normalised to the number of b hadrons measured by ALEPH in $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 91.2 GeV [156] (black symbols with vertical error bars showing the total measurement uncertainties) compared to $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles (left). The uncertainty bands are constructed around the default prediction and illustrate the b quark fragmentation uncertainties. The measured semileptonic branching ratios of b hadrons [1] (black symbols) compared to the values in the generator setups (coloured symbols) and their uncertainties, illustrated by shaded bands (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 16a:
Distribution of the b quark fragmentation function normalised to the number of b hadrons measured by ALEPH in $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 91.2 GeV [156] (black symbols with vertical error bars showing the total measurement uncertainties) compared to $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles (left). The uncertainty bands are constructed around the default prediction and illustrate the b quark fragmentation uncertainties. The measured semileptonic branching ratios of b hadrons [1] (black symbols) compared to the values in the generator setups (coloured symbols) and their uncertainties, illustrated by shaded bands (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 16b:
Distribution of the b quark fragmentation function normalised to the number of b hadrons measured by ALEPH in $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 91.2 GeV [156] (black symbols with vertical error bars showing the total measurement uncertainties) compared to $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ MC simulations for the generator setups used in Run1, early Run2, and Run2 legacy analyses, presented by bands of different styles (left). The uncertainty bands are constructed around the default prediction and illustrate the b quark fragmentation uncertainties. The measured semileptonic branching ratios of b hadrons [1] (black symbols) compared to the values in the generator setups (coloured symbols) and their uncertainties, illustrated by shaded bands (right). 
png pdf 
Figure 17:
Momenta of the selfenergy quantum corrections in the top quark rest frame (red segments), absorbed into the top quark mass parameter in the pole (very left), MSR and $ \mathrm{\overline{MS}} $ schemes for different mass renormalisation scales with respect to the charm and bottom quark masses. The red segments extend to infinite momenta for all top quark mass schemes. The loops inside the red segments illustrate contributions of the virtual top, charm, or bottom quark loops, and $ n_{\mathrm{q}} $ stands for the number of quarks lighter than quark $ \mathrm{q} $, indicating that the MSR and the $ \mathrm{\overline{MS}} $ masses run with different flavour numbers between flavour thresholds, as does the strong coupling constant $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $. Figure taken from Ref. [188]. 
png pdf 
Figure 18:
Left: The distribution of the reconstructed top quark mass $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{reco} $ using the jet assignment from the kinematic fit, but the reconstructed jet momenta and no addition selection. Right: The distribution of the top quark mass from the kinematic fit $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ with the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 selection. Data are shown as points with vertical error bars showing the statistical uncertainties. The coloured histograms show the simulated signal and background contributions. The simulated signal is decomposed into the contributions from correct, wrong, or unmatched permutations as introduced in Section 2.3. The uncertainty in the predicted $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section is indicated by the hatched area. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. The reduction of permutations with wrongly assigned jets and the much narrower peak are clearly visible in the $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ measurement. Figures taken from Ref. [48]. 
png pdf 
Figure 18a:
Left: The distribution of the reconstructed top quark mass $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{reco} $ using the jet assignment from the kinematic fit, but the reconstructed jet momenta and no addition selection. Right: The distribution of the top quark mass from the kinematic fit $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ with the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 selection. Data are shown as points with vertical error bars showing the statistical uncertainties. The coloured histograms show the simulated signal and background contributions. The simulated signal is decomposed into the contributions from correct, wrong, or unmatched permutations as introduced in Section 2.3. The uncertainty in the predicted $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section is indicated by the hatched area. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. The reduction of permutations with wrongly assigned jets and the much narrower peak are clearly visible in the $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ measurement. Figures taken from Ref. [48]. 
png pdf 
Figure 18b:
Left: The distribution of the reconstructed top quark mass $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{reco} $ using the jet assignment from the kinematic fit, but the reconstructed jet momenta and no addition selection. Right: The distribution of the top quark mass from the kinematic fit $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ with the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 selection. Data are shown as points with vertical error bars showing the statistical uncertainties. The coloured histograms show the simulated signal and background contributions. The simulated signal is decomposed into the contributions from correct, wrong, or unmatched permutations as introduced in Section 2.3. The uncertainty in the predicted $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section is indicated by the hatched area. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. The reduction of permutations with wrongly assigned jets and the much narrower peak are clearly visible in the $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ measurement. Figures taken from Ref. [48]. 
png pdf 
Figure 19:
Contours of the likelihood of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \text{JSF} $ values for single events in the Run1 CMS measurement [53]. 
png pdf 
Figure 19a:
Contours of the likelihood of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \text{JSF} $ values for single events in the Run1 CMS measurement [53]. 
png pdf 
Figure 19b:
Contours of the likelihood of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \text{JSF} $ values for single events in the Run1 CMS measurement [53]. 
png pdf 
Figure 19c:
Contours of the likelihood of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \text{JSF} $ values for single events in the Run1 CMS measurement [53]. 
png pdf 
Figure 19d:
Contours of the likelihood of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ and $ \text{JSF} $ values for single events in the Run1 CMS measurement [53]. 
png pdf 
Figure 20:
The difference between the measured and generated $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ values, divided by the uncertainty reported by the fit from pseudoexperiments without (red) or with (blue) the additional nuisance parameters for the finite sample sizes. Also included in the legend are the $ \mu $ and $ \sigma $ parameters of Gaussian functions (red and blue lines) fit to the histograms. Figure taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 21:
The distributions of the top quark mass from the kinematic fit for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category (left) and of the invariant mass of the lepton and the jet assigned to the top quark decaying in the lepton+jets channel for the $ P_{\text{gof}} < $ 0.2 category (right). Data are shown as points with vertical error bars showing the statistical uncertainties. The coloured histograms show the simulated signal and background contributions. The simulated signal is decomposed into the contributions from correct, wrong, or unmatched permutations, as introduced in Section 2.3. The uncertainty bands contain statistical uncertainties in the simulation, normalisation uncertainties due to the integrated luminosity and cross section, JES correction, and all uncertainties that are evaluated from eventbased weights. A large part of the depicted uncertainties in the expected event yields are correlated. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the prediction. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 21a:
The distributions of the top quark mass from the kinematic fit for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category (left) and of the invariant mass of the lepton and the jet assigned to the top quark decaying in the lepton+jets channel for the $ P_{\text{gof}} < $ 0.2 category (right). Data are shown as points with vertical error bars showing the statistical uncertainties. The coloured histograms show the simulated signal and background contributions. The simulated signal is decomposed into the contributions from correct, wrong, or unmatched permutations, as introduced in Section 2.3. The uncertainty bands contain statistical uncertainties in the simulation, normalisation uncertainties due to the integrated luminosity and cross section, JES correction, and all uncertainties that are evaluated from eventbased weights. A large part of the depicted uncertainties in the expected event yields are correlated. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the prediction. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 21b:
The distributions of the top quark mass from the kinematic fit for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category (left) and of the invariant mass of the lepton and the jet assigned to the top quark decaying in the lepton+jets channel for the $ P_{\text{gof}} < $ 0.2 category (right). Data are shown as points with vertical error bars showing the statistical uncertainties. The coloured histograms show the simulated signal and background contributions. The simulated signal is decomposed into the contributions from correct, wrong, or unmatched permutations, as introduced in Section 2.3. The uncertainty bands contain statistical uncertainties in the simulation, normalisation uncertainties due to the integrated luminosity and cross section, JES correction, and all uncertainties that are evaluated from eventbased weights. A large part of the depicted uncertainties in the expected event yields are correlated. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the prediction. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 22:
The distributions of $ m_{\mathrm{W}}^\text{reco} $ (upper left), $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{reco}/m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ (upper right), and $ R_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{q}}^\text{reco} $ (lower) for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category. Symbols and patterns are the same as in Fig. 21. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 22a:
The distributions of $ m_{\mathrm{W}}^\text{reco} $ (upper left), $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{reco}/m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ (upper right), and $ R_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{q}}^\text{reco} $ (lower) for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category. Symbols and patterns are the same as in Fig. 21. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 22b:
The distributions of $ m_{\mathrm{W}}^\text{reco} $ (upper left), $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{reco}/m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ (upper right), and $ R_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{q}}^\text{reco} $ (lower) for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category. Symbols and patterns are the same as in Fig. 21. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 22c:
The distributions of $ m_{\mathrm{W}}^\text{reco} $ (upper left), $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{reco}/m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{fit} $ (upper right), and $ R_{\mathrm{b}\mathrm{q}}^\text{reco} $ (lower) for the $ P_{\text{gof}} > $ 0.2 category. Symbols and patterns are the same as in Fig. 21. In the figures, the default value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^\text{gen}= $ 172.5 GeV is used. Figures taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 23:
Comparison of the expected total uncertainty in $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ in the combined lepton+jets channel and for different observable categories defined in Table 4. Figure taken from Ref. [71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 24:
Summary of the direct $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ measurements in the lepton+jets channel by the CMS Collaboration. The left panel shows the measured value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (marker) with statistical (black bars) and total (grey bars) uncertainties. The right panel displays a breakdown of contributing uncertainty groups and their impact on the uncertainty in the measurement. The two results at 13 TeV are derived from the same data. The figure is compiled from Refs. [48,53,61,71]. 
png pdf 
Figure 25:
Comparison of the CMS direct $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ measurements from the Run2 data collected in 2016 at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV to the best Run1 measurements at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV in each channel. The horizontal bars display the total uncertainty in the measurements and the red band shows the uncertainty in the Run1 combination [72]. The figure is compiled from Refs. [53,61,71,60,63,69,62,72]. 
png pdf 
Figure 26:
Difference of the $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ extracted after calibration in each bin and from the inclusive sample as a function of the invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ (left) and the $ \Delta R $ between the lightquark jets $ \Delta R_{\mathrm{q}{\overline{\mathrm{q}}{\prime}} } $ (right), obtained from the hybrid fit [61], compared to different generator models. The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity, the horizontal bars indicating the bin widths are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. Figures taken from Ref. [61]. 
png pdf 
Figure 26a:
Difference of the $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ extracted after calibration in each bin and from the inclusive sample as a function of the invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ (left) and the $ \Delta R $ between the lightquark jets $ \Delta R_{\mathrm{q}{\overline{\mathrm{q}}{\prime}} } $ (right), obtained from the hybrid fit [61], compared to different generator models. The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity, the horizontal bars indicating the bin widths are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. Figures taken from Ref. [61]. 
png pdf 
Figure 26b:
Difference of the $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ extracted after calibration in each bin and from the inclusive sample as a function of the invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ (left) and the $ \Delta R $ between the lightquark jets $ \Delta R_{\mathrm{q}{\overline{\mathrm{q}}{\prime}} } $ (right), obtained from the hybrid fit [61], compared to different generator models. The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity, the horizontal bars indicating the bin widths are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. Figures taken from Ref. [61]. 
png pdf 
Figure 27:
Feynman diagrams of the $ t $channel single top quark production at LO corresponding to five (left) and fourflavour (right) schemes, assuming five (u, d, s, c, b) or four (u, d, s, c) active quark flavours in the proton, respectively. At NLO in perturbative QCD, the right diagram is also part of the fiveflavour scheme. 
png pdf 
Figure 27a:
Feynman diagrams of the $ t $channel single top quark production at LO corresponding to five (left) and fourflavour (right) schemes, assuming five (u, d, s, c, b) or four (u, d, s, c) active quark flavours in the proton, respectively. At NLO in perturbative QCD, the right diagram is also part of the fiveflavour scheme. 
png pdf 
Figure 27b:
Feynman diagrams of the $ t $channel single top quark production at LO corresponding to five (left) and fourflavour (right) schemes, assuming five (u, d, s, c, b) or four (u, d, s, c) active quark flavours in the proton, respectively. At NLO in perturbative QCD, the right diagram is also part of the fiveflavour scheme. 
png pdf 
Figure 28:
Normalised differential cross section of the $ t $channel single top quark production as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the partonlevel top quark (left) and the W boson (right). Figures taken from Ref. [204]. 
png pdf 
Figure 28a:
Normalised differential cross section of the $ t $channel single top quark production as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the partonlevel top quark (left) and the W boson (right). Figures taken from Ref. [204]. 
png pdf 
Figure 28b:
Normalised differential cross section of the $ t $channel single top quark production as a function of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ of the partonlevel top quark (left) and the W boson (right). Figures taken from Ref. [204]. 
png pdf 
Figure 29:
The uncertainty in $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ from the statistical and profiled systematic components (red) and uncertainty in the $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ calibration (blue) as a function of the cutoff on the BDT score. Figure taken from Ref. [67]. 
png pdf 
Figure 30:
Datatosimulation comparison of the reconstructed top quark mass (left) and postfit $ \zeta=\ln(m_{\mathrm{t}}/$ 1 GeV (right) distributions after BDT selection. The lower panel in the left plot shows the datatosimulation ratios for each bin, while the lower panel in the right plot shows the normalised residuals or pulls, determined using the bin contents of the data distributions (after background QCD subtraction) and the $ F(\zeta) $ values evaluated at the centre of the bins. Figures taken from Ref. [67]. 
png pdf 
Figure 30a:
Datatosimulation comparison of the reconstructed top quark mass (left) and postfit $ \zeta=\ln(m_{\mathrm{t}}/$ 1 GeV (right) distributions after BDT selection. The lower panel in the left plot shows the datatosimulation ratios for each bin, while the lower panel in the right plot shows the normalised residuals or pulls, determined using the bin contents of the data distributions (after background QCD subtraction) and the $ F(\zeta) $ values evaluated at the centre of the bins. Figures taken from Ref. [67]. 
png pdf 
Figure 30b:
Datatosimulation comparison of the reconstructed top quark mass (left) and postfit $ \zeta=\ln(m_{\mathrm{t}}/$ 1 GeV (right) distributions after BDT selection. The lower panel in the left plot shows the datatosimulation ratios for each bin, while the lower panel in the right plot shows the normalised residuals or pulls, determined using the bin contents of the data distributions (after background QCD subtraction) and the $ F(\zeta) $ values evaluated at the centre of the bins. Figures taken from Ref. [67]. 
png pdf 
Figure 31:
Summary of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ measurements in single top quark events. The left panel shows the measured value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (marker) with statistical (thick bars) and total (thin bars) uncertainties. In the case of the 13 TeV measurement [67], the statistical component of the uncertainty includes contributions from the statistical and profiled systematic uncertainties. The right panel displays a breakdown of contributing uncertainty groups and their impact on the uncertainty in the measurement. The figure is compiled from Refs. [58,67]. 
png pdf 
Figure 32:
Summary of $ \Delta m_{\mathrm{t}} $ measurements in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ and single top quark events. The left panel shows the measured value of $ \Delta m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (marker) with statistical (thick bars) and total (thin bars) uncertainties. In the case of the single top quark measurement [67], the statistical component of the uncertainty includes contributions from the statistical and profiled systematic uncertainties. The right panel displays a breakdown of contributing uncertainty groups and their impact on the uncertainty in the measurement. The figure is compiled from Refs. [209,210,67]. 
png pdf 
Figure 33:
Predicted $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ as a function of the top quark pole mass, using different PDF sets (red shaded band and red lines of different styles), compared to the cross section measured by CMS assuming $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}}=m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ (blue shaded band). The uncertainties in the measured $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ as well as the scale and PDF uncertainties in the prediction with NNPDF2.3 [126] are illustrated by the filled band. The $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ result obtained in direct measurements to that date is shown as hatched area. The inner (solid) area of the vertical band corresponds to the quoted experimental uncertainty in $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $, while the outer (hatched) area additionally accounts for a possible difference between this value and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $. Figure taken from Ref. [52]. 
png pdf 
Figure 34:
Values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ obtained by using measured $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ together with the prediction at NNLO+NNLL using different NNLO PDF sets. The filled symbols represent the results obtained when using the world average of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, while the open symbols indicate the results obtained with the default $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ value of the respective PDF set. The inner error bars include the uncertainties in the measured cross section and in the LHC beam energy, as well as the PDF and scale uncertainties in the predicted cross section. The outer error bars additionally account for the uncertainty in the $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ value used for a specific prediction. For comparison, the most precise $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ to that date is shown as vertical band, where the inner (solid) area corresponds to the original uncertainty of the direct $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ average, while the outer (hatched) area additionally accounts for the possible difference between $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $. Figure taken from Ref. [52]. 
png pdf 
Figure 35:
Likelihood for the predicted dependence of $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ on $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ for 7 and 8 TeV determined with TOP++, using the NNPDF3.0 PDF set. The measured dependencies on the mass are given by the dashed lines, their 1 $ \sigma $ uncertainties are represented by the dotted lines. The extracted mass at each value of $ \sqrt{s} $ is indicated by a black point, with its $ \pm $ 1 standard deviation uncertainty constructed from the continuous contour, corresponding to $ 2\Delta\log(L_{\text{pred}}L_{\text{exp}})= $ 1. Figure taken from Ref. [54]. 
png pdf 
Figure 36:
Absolute (left) and shape (right) distributions of $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{min} $ for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production at the LHC at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV after detector simulation and event selection in the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ channel. The central prediction (black symbols) is obtained at the value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ of 172.5 GeV, denoted as $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^0 $. Predictions assuming different $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ values are shown by different colours. 
png pdf 
Figure 36a:
Absolute (left) and shape (right) distributions of $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{min} $ for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production at the LHC at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV after detector simulation and event selection in the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ channel. The central prediction (black symbols) is obtained at the value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ of 172.5 GeV, denoted as $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^0 $. Predictions assuming different $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ values are shown by different colours. 
png pdf 
Figure 36b:
Absolute (left) and shape (right) distributions of $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{min} $ for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production at the LHC at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV after detector simulation and event selection in the $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ channel. The central prediction (black symbols) is obtained at the value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ of 172.5 GeV, denoted as $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^0 $. Predictions assuming different $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ values are shown by different colours. 
png pdf 
Figure 37:
Data (points) compared to prefit (left) and postfit (right) $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{min} $ distributions of the expected signal and backgrounds from simulation (shaded histograms) used in the simultaneous fit of $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $. Events with exactly one btagged jets are shown. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the sum of the predicted yields. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are shown in the lower panel. Here, the solid grey band represents the contribution of the statistical uncertainty. Figures taken from Ref. [63]. 
png pdf 
Figure 37a:
Data (points) compared to prefit (left) and postfit (right) $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{min} $ distributions of the expected signal and backgrounds from simulation (shaded histograms) used in the simultaneous fit of $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $. Events with exactly one btagged jets are shown. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the sum of the predicted yields. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are shown in the lower panel. Here, the solid grey band represents the contribution of the statistical uncertainty. Figures taken from Ref. [63]. 
png pdf 
Figure 37b:
Data (points) compared to prefit (left) and postfit (right) $ m_{\ell\mathrm{b}}^\text{min} $ distributions of the expected signal and backgrounds from simulation (shaded histograms) used in the simultaneous fit of $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $. Events with exactly one btagged jets are shown. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the sum of the predicted yields. The ratios of data to the sum of the predicted yields are shown in the lower panel. Here, the solid grey band represents the contribution of the statistical uncertainty. Figures taken from Ref. [63]. 
png pdf 
Figure 38:
Normalised pulls and constraints of the nuisance parameters related to the modelling uncertainties for the simultaneous fit of $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $. The markers denote the fitted value, while the inner vertical bars represent the constraint and the outer vertical bars denote the additional uncertainty as determined from pseudoexperiments. The constraint is defined as the ratio of the postfit uncertainty to the prefit uncertainty of a given nuisance parameter, while the normalised pull is the difference between the postfit and the prefit values of the nuisance parameter normalised to its prefit uncertainty. The horizontal lines at $ \pm $ 1 represent the prefit uncertainty. Figure taken from Ref. [63]. 
png pdf 
Figure 39:
Values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}(m_{\mathrm{t}}) $ obtained from comparing the $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ measurement to the theoretical NNLO predictions using different PDF sets. The inner horizontal bars on the points represent the quadratic sum of the experimental, PDF, and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ uncertainties, while the outer horizontal bars give the total uncertainties. Figure taken from Ref. [63]. 
png pdf 
Figure 40:
Values of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ obtained in the comparison of the $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ measurement to the NNLO prediction using different PDFs, as functions of the $ m_{\mathrm{t}}(m_{\mathrm{t}}) $ value used in the theoretical calculation. The results from using the different PDFs are shown by the bands with different shadings, with the band width corresponding to the quadratic sum of the experimental and PDF uncertainties in $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $. The resulting measured values of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $ are shown by the different style points at the $ m_{\mathrm{t}}(m_{\mathrm{t}}) $ values used for each PDF. The inner vertical bars on the points represent the quadratic sum of the experimental and PDF uncertainties in $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, while the outer vertical bars show the total uncertainties. Figure taken from Ref. [63]. 
png pdf 
Figure 41:
Left: profile likelihood unfolding of the $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ distribution. The signal sample is split into subprocesses in bins of partonlevel $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $, and the signal corresponding to bin $ k $ in $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ is denoted with ``Signal ($ \mu_{\mathrm{k}} $)''. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, while the hashed band is the total uncertainty in the MC simulation. Right: unfolded $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section as a function of $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $, compared to theoretical predictions in the $ \mathrm{\overline{MS}} $ scheme for different values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}(m_{\mathrm{t}}) $. The vertical bars correspond to the total uncertainty in the unfolded cross section. Here, the bin centres for the unfolded cross section are defined as the average $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ in the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Figures taken from Ref. [65]. 
png pdf 
Figure 41a:
Left: profile likelihood unfolding of the $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ distribution. The signal sample is split into subprocesses in bins of partonlevel $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $, and the signal corresponding to bin $ k $ in $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ is denoted with ``Signal ($ \mu_{\mathrm{k}} $)''. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, while the hashed band is the total uncertainty in the MC simulation. Right: unfolded $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section as a function of $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $, compared to theoretical predictions in the $ \mathrm{\overline{MS}} $ scheme for different values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}(m_{\mathrm{t}}) $. The vertical bars correspond to the total uncertainty in the unfolded cross section. Here, the bin centres for the unfolded cross section are defined as the average $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ in the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Figures taken from Ref. [65]. 
png pdf 
Figure 41b:
Left: profile likelihood unfolding of the $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ distribution. The signal sample is split into subprocesses in bins of partonlevel $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $, and the signal corresponding to bin $ k $ in $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ is denoted with ``Signal ($ \mu_{\mathrm{k}} $)''. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainty in the data, while the hashed band is the total uncertainty in the MC simulation. Right: unfolded $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section as a function of $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $, compared to theoretical predictions in the $ \mathrm{\overline{MS}} $ scheme for different values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}(m_{\mathrm{t}}) $. The vertical bars correspond to the total uncertainty in the unfolded cross section. Here, the bin centres for the unfolded cross section are defined as the average $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ in the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Figures taken from Ref. [65]. 
png pdf 
Figure 42:
Running of the top quark mass as a function of $ \mu_{\mathrm{m}}=m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} }/ $ 2 obtained with a binbybin dynamic scale $ \mu_{\mathrm{k}}/ $ 2 (full circles), compared to the central values of the results of Ref. [65] obtained with a constant scale $ \mu_{\mathrm{m}}=\mu_{\mathrm{k}} $ (hollow squares) and to those of the NNLO results of Ref. [241] (hollow triangles). As in Ref. [65], the error bars indicate the combination of experimental, extrapolation, and PDF uncertainties in the NLO extraction with binbybin dynamic scale. The full treatment of the QCD scale variations can be found in Ref. [241]. The assumptions on the renormalisation and factorisation scales adopted in the different interpretations are summarised in Table 6. The uncertainties in the three results, which are mostly correlated, are given in the respective references and are of comparable size. 
png pdf 
Figure 43:
The fractional uncertainties in the gluon distribution function of the proton as a function of $ x $ at factorisation scale $ \mu_{\mathrm{f}}^2= $ 10$^5$ GeV$^{2}$ from a QCD analysis using the DIS and CMS muon charge asymmetry measurements (hatched area), and also including the CMS $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ results at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 5.02 TeV (solid area). The relative uncertainties are found after the two gluon distributions have been normalised to unity. The solid line shows the ratio of the gluon distribution function found from the fit with the CMS $ \sigma_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ measurements included to that found without. Figure taken from Ref. [242]. 
png pdf 
Figure 44:
Comparison of the measured $ [N_{\text{jet}}^{0,1+},m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} },y_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} }] $ cross sections to NLO predictions obtained using different $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ values. For each theoretical prediction, values of $ \chi^2 $ and dof for the comparison to the data are reported. Figure taken from Ref. [64]. 
png pdf 
Figure 45:
The theoretical uncertainties for $ [N_{\text{jet}}^{0,1+},m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} },y_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} }] $ cross sections, arising from the scale, PDF, $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}}) $, and $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ variations, as well as the total theoretical uncertainties obtained from variations in $ \mu_{\mathrm{r}} $ and $ \mu_{\mathrm{f}} $, with their binaveraged values shown in brackets. The bins are the same as in Fig. 44. Figure taken from Ref. [64]. 
png pdf 
Figure 46:
The extracted values and their correlations for $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ (upper left), $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ and gluon PDF (lower left), and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ and gluon PDF (lower, right). The gluon PDF is shown at the scale $ \mu_{\mathrm{f}}^2= $ 30 000 GeV$^{2}$ for several values of $ x $. For the extracted values of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $, the additional uncertainties arising from the dependence on the scale are shown. The correlation coefficients $ \rho $ as defined in Ref. [64] are displayed. Furthermore, values of $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ ($ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $, gluon PDF) extracted using fixed values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}}(\alpha_\mathrm{S}) $ are displayed as dashed, dotted, or dashdotted lines. The world average values $ \alpha_\mathrm{S}(m_{\mathrm{Z}})= $ 0.1181 $ \pm $ 0.0011 and $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}}= $ 173.1 $ \pm $ 0.9 GeV from Ref. [252] are shown for reference. Figure taken from Ref. [64]. 
png pdf 
Figure 47:
Left: Sensitivity $ \mathcal{S} $ to the value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ (blue) and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+jet} $ production (orange). Figure taken from Ref. [69]. Right: The distribution of $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ at the parton level as given by the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulation as a function of $ \rho $ at parton level, obtained in Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 47a:
Left: Sensitivity $ \mathcal{S} $ to the value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ (blue) and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+jet} $ production (orange). Figure taken from Ref. [69]. Right: The distribution of $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ at the parton level as given by the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulation as a function of $ \rho $ at parton level, obtained in Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 47b:
Left: Sensitivity $ \mathcal{S} $ to the value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{pole}} $ for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ (blue) and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+jet} $ production (orange). Figure taken from Ref. [69]. Right: The distribution of $ m_{{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} } $ at the parton level as given by the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulation as a function of $ \rho $ at parton level, obtained in Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 48:
The measured normalised $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+jet} $ differential cross section (closed symbols) as a function of $ \rho $. The vertical error bars (shaded areas) show the statistical (statistical plus systematic) uncertainty. The data are compared to theoretical predictions and the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation, either using alternative values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (left panel), shown by the solid lines, or two alternative PDF sets (right), shown by the hatched areas. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the measurement is shown. Figures taken from Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 48a:
The measured normalised $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+jet} $ differential cross section (closed symbols) as a function of $ \rho $. The vertical error bars (shaded areas) show the statistical (statistical plus systematic) uncertainty. The data are compared to theoretical predictions and the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation, either using alternative values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (left panel), shown by the solid lines, or two alternative PDF sets (right), shown by the hatched areas. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the measurement is shown. Figures taken from Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 48b:
The measured normalised $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \text{+jet} $ differential cross section (closed symbols) as a function of $ \rho $. The vertical error bars (shaded areas) show the statistical (statistical plus systematic) uncertainty. The data are compared to theoretical predictions and the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation, either using alternative values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (left panel), shown by the solid lines, or two alternative PDF sets (right), shown by the hatched areas. In the lower panels, the ratio of the predictions to the measurement is shown. Figures taken from Ref. [69]. 
png pdf 
Figure 49:
Percentiles of maximum angular distance between the top quark decay partons as a function of the top quark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ obtained from $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ simulation. The filled bands indicate the areas that are populated by 70, 80, and 90% of all simulated $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events, where the decay partons have at least $ p_{\mathrm{T}} > $ 20 GeV. The most probable value (MPV) is shown as a dashed line, and two functional forms are shown that approximate the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $dependence of $ \Delta R_{\text{max}} $. Figure taken from Ref. [271]. 
png pdf 
Figure 50:
Display of a simulated $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ event. Each point marks the position of a particle at the particle level in the $ \eta\text{}\phi $ plane. Decay products of the top quarks are highlighted with triangles or larger circles. The red triangles mark the three quarks from the hadronic decay; the black triangle, black circle, and open circle correspond to the b quark, charged lepton, and neutrino from the leptonic top quark decay, respectively. The jet areas are shown as coloured shapes. The left panel shows the first clustering step with $ N= $ 2 and $ R= $ 1.2, while the right panel shows the subjet clustering. 
png pdf 
Figure 50a:
Display of a simulated $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ event. Each point marks the position of a particle at the particle level in the $ \eta\text{}\phi $ plane. Decay products of the top quarks are highlighted with triangles or larger circles. The red triangles mark the three quarks from the hadronic decay; the black triangle, black circle, and open circle correspond to the b quark, charged lepton, and neutrino from the leptonic top quark decay, respectively. The jet areas are shown as coloured shapes. The left panel shows the first clustering step with $ N= $ 2 and $ R= $ 1.2, while the right panel shows the subjet clustering. 
png pdf 
Figure 50b:
Display of a simulated $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ event. Each point marks the position of a particle at the particle level in the $ \eta\text{}\phi $ plane. Decay products of the top quarks are highlighted with triangles or larger circles. The red triangles mark the three quarks from the hadronic decay; the black triangle, black circle, and open circle correspond to the b quark, charged lepton, and neutrino from the leptonic top quark decay, respectively. The jet areas are shown as coloured shapes. The left panel shows the first clustering step with $ N= $ 2 and $ R= $ 1.2, while the right panel shows the subjet clustering. 
png pdf 
Figure 51:
Normalised jet mass distribution at the particle level for the twostep XCone clustering (blue solid) used in Ref. [66,70] and CA jets with $ R= $ 1.2 (red dotted) used in Ref. [59]. Only events where all top quark decay products are within $ \Delta R= $ 0.4 to any XCone subjet or within $ \Delta R= $ 1.2 to the CA jet are shown. 
png pdf 
Figure 52:
Normalised differential $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section as a function of $ m_{\text{jet}} $. Data (markers) are compared to predictions for different $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ obtained from simulation (lines). The bars on the markers display the statistical (inner bars) and total (outer bars) uncertainties. The theoretical uncertainty is shown as coloured area. Figure taken from Ref. [70]. 
png pdf 
Figure 53:
Summary of the $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ extraction in $ m_{\text{jet}} $ measurements. The left panel shows the extracted value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (marker) with statistical (thick bars) and total (thin bars) uncertainties. The right panel displays a breakdown of contributing uncertainty groups and their impact on the uncertainty in the $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ extraction. The figure is compiled from Refs. [59,66,70]. 
png pdf 
Figure 54:
Overview of top quark mass measurement results published by the CMS Collaboration. The markers display the respective measured value of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ with the statistical (inner) and total (outer) uncertainties shown as horizontal error bars. The measurements are categorised into Lagrangian mass extractions from cross section measurements and direct measurements of $ m_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{MC}} $ and are compared to the combined cross section measurement of the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations (red) and a CMS combination of Run1 results (blue). Similar labelling as in Table 1 is used. The figure is compiled from Refs. [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]. 
png pdf 
Figure 55:
The resolution of the $ \mu+\mathrm{J}/\psi $ mass for the CMS Phase2 upgraded detector, for the two PU scenarios, and for the Run2 (Phase0) detector. Figure taken from Ref. [290]. 
png pdf 
Figure 56:
Total uncertainty in $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ obtained with a selection of different measurement methods and their projections for expected running conditions in Run2 + Run3 and at the HLLHC. The projections are based on $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ measurements performed during the LHC Run1, also listed in Table 1: the $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ [56], total $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section [54] in the dilepton channel, secondary vertex [55], single top quark [58], and lepton+jets direct [53] measurements. These projections do not fully account for improvements in the performance of the upgraded CMS detector. Figure taken from Ref. [294]. 
png pdf 
Figure 57:
Left: The projected total experimental uncertainty in the top quark pair production cross section as a function of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, for two experimental scenarios, assuming no reduction of the experimental uncertainties with respect to Run2 and a reduction of the uncertainties following the recommendations outlined in Ref [295]. Right: The projected relative uncertainties in the extracted values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (dotted lines) and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ (solid lines) as a function of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, comparing the case of the full uncertainty in the prediction and no uncertainty in the prediction. The results are obtained assuming a reduction of the uncertainties in the measurement to 1.5%. Figure taken from Ref. [296]. 
png pdf 
Figure 57a:
Left: The projected total experimental uncertainty in the top quark pair production cross section as a function of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, for two experimental scenarios, assuming no reduction of the experimental uncertainties with respect to Run2 and a reduction of the uncertainties following the recommendations outlined in Ref [295]. Right: The projected relative uncertainties in the extracted values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (dotted lines) and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ (solid lines) as a function of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, comparing the case of the full uncertainty in the prediction and no uncertainty in the prediction. The results are obtained assuming a reduction of the uncertainties in the measurement to 1.5%. Figure taken from Ref. [296]. 
png pdf 
Figure 57b:
Left: The projected total experimental uncertainty in the top quark pair production cross section as a function of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, for two experimental scenarios, assuming no reduction of the experimental uncertainties with respect to Run2 and a reduction of the uncertainties following the recommendations outlined in Ref [295]. Right: The projected relative uncertainties in the extracted values of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ (dotted lines) and $ \alpha_\mathrm{S} $ (solid lines) as a function of the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity, comparing the case of the full uncertainty in the prediction and no uncertainty in the prediction. The results are obtained assuming a reduction of the uncertainties in the measurement to 1.5%. Figure taken from Ref. [296]. 
png pdf 
Figure 58:
Projected cumulative differential $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ distributions for HLLHC scenario as functions of rapidity and invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ pair. Figure taken from Ref. [297]. 
png pdf 
Figure 59:
The relative gluon PDF uncertainties of the original and profiled ABMP16 (left), CT14 (middle), and NNPDF3.1 (right) sets. Figure taken from Ref. [297]. 
png pdf 
Figure 59a:
The relative gluon PDF uncertainties of the original and profiled ABMP16 (left), CT14 (middle), and NNPDF3.1 (right) sets. Figure taken from Ref. [297]. 
png pdf 
Figure 59b:
The relative gluon PDF uncertainties of the original and profiled ABMP16 (left), CT14 (middle), and NNPDF3.1 (right) sets. Figure taken from Ref. [297]. 
png pdf 
Figure 59c:
The relative gluon PDF uncertainties of the original and profiled ABMP16 (left), CT14 (middle), and NNPDF3.1 (right) sets. Figure taken from Ref. [297]. 
png pdf 
Figure 60:
Scan of the jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ threshold in the measurements of the jet mass against integrated luminosity resulting in the same event yield in data after the full selection as in the most recent measurement [70]. The projection is obtained by scanning the jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ spectrum observed in data. The markers correspond to 138 fb$ ^{1} $ of LHC Run2 data used in Ref. [70], to an estimated data set for the combination of Run2 and Run3, and to the HLLHC scenario. For simplicity a constant centreofmass energy of 13 TeV and a similar detector acceptance to Run2 are assumed in all scenarios. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
List of all CMS $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ measurements by using different analysis methods in chronological order of publication. The summary of these measurements is also depicted in Fig. 54. The analyses are categorised as direct mass measurements (a), indirect extraction of the Lagrangian mass (b), or boosted measurements (c), as explained in the text. The analysis methods of the publications marked with a star (*) are covered in the following sections of this review. All acronyms are defined in Appendix 7. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Overview of CMS MC setups for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production used in analyses of Run1 and Run2 data, and their associated modelling uncertainties. Variations marked with a dagger ($ \dagger $) are evaluated via event weights, which mitigates the uncertainty associated with the size of MC samples without the need for additional simulations. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Typical object definitions, and configuration parameters used for defining top quarks at the particle level (pseudotop candidate). The pseudotop candidate definition is not universal and may be optimised for the production mode, final state, the variable, and the phase space being studied. The details of particlelevel top quark definitions adopted in the RIVET [179,180] framework by CMS codes are described in Ref. [178] as a fundamental aspect for current and future measurements of differential production cross sections in both $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ and singletop quark production. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
The overall list of different input histograms and their inclusion in a certain histogram set. A histogram marked with ``$ \times $'' is included in a set (measurement). 
png pdf 
Table 5:
Advancement in analysis strategies between Run1 [58] and Run2 [67] measurements of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ in single top events. Primary improvements that resulted in a higher precision in the Run2 measurement are highlighted in bold. 
png pdf 
Table 6:
Summary of scale choices for $ \mu_{\mathrm{r}} $, $ \mu_{\mathrm{f}} $, and $ \mu_{\mathrm{m}} $ for the three different extractions of the running of the top quark mass. The NLO fixed scale corresponds to the result of Ref. [65], while the NNLO result is described in Ref. [241]. The NLO binbybin dynamic result, instead, is obtained in the scope of this review work. 
png pdf 
Table 7:
A list of the event categories and distributions used in the maximum likelihood fit. 
Summary 
Measurements of the top quark mass have been an essential part of the CMS research programme since the first data were recorded in 2010, with more than 20 journal publications that reveal different aspects related to this fundamental parameter of the standard model. A growing understanding of theoretical and experimental issues on the way towards increasing precision in $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $, demanded by matching the accuracy of other electroweak parameters, were followed by steady improvements in analysis techniques. Different complementary methods have been used for measurements of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $, affected by different sources of theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties. An impressive subGeV precision has been achieved, despite the challenging environment of highenergy pp collisions at the LHC, where events are affected by QCD and electroweak radiation, the underlying event and an unprecedented level of pileup interactions. This success, and a clear perspective of experimental improvements envisaged for the HLLHC, give confidence in reaching the ultimate precision in $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ achievable at a hadron collider in the next decade. This experimental goal requires that the necessary theoretical developments will take place, including advancements in the description of the top quark beyond the picture of a free particle, matching higherorder calculations to resummations and hadronisation models, and calculating corrections at the threshold of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production. The precise determination of $ m_{\mathrm{t}} $ is an ongoing endeavor that fosters a close collaboration of the experimental and theoretical communities, with bright prospects in the coming years. 
References  
1  Particle Data Group , R. L. Workman et al.  Review of particle physics  Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022 (2022) 083C01  
2  G. Mahlon and S. J. Parke  Spin correlation effects in top quark pair production at the LHC  PRD 81 (2010) 074024  1001.3422 
3  A. H. Hoang  What is the top quark mass?  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 225  2004.12915 
4  M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa  $ {CP} $violation in the renormalizable theory of weak interaction  Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652  
5  P. H. Ginsparg, S. L. Glashow, and M. B. Wise  Topquark mass and bottomquark decay  PRL 50 (1983) 1415  
6  A. J. Buras, W. Slominski, and H. Steger  $ {\mathrm{B}} $ meson decay, $ {CP} $ violation, mixing angles and the top quark mass  NPB 238 (1984) 529  
7  JADE Collaboration  A measurement of the electroweak induced charge asymmetry in $ {\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}} $  PLB 146 (1984) 437  
8  S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani  Weak interactions with leptonhadron symmetry  PRD 2 (1970) 1285  
9  B. Adeva et al.  Search for top quark and a test of models without top quark up to 38.54 GeV at PETRA  PRL 50 (1983) 799  
10  TOPAZ Collaboration  Search for top quark in $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 52 GeV  PRL 60 (1988) 97  
11  UA1 Collaboration  Search for new heavy quarks in protonantiproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 0.63 TeV  Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 1  
12  UA2 Collaboration  Search for top quark production at the CERN $ {\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}} $ collider  Z. Phys. C 46 (1990) 179  
13  ARGUS Collaboration  Observation of $ {\mathrm{B}^0}$$\overline{\mathrm{B}}^{0} $ mixing  PLB 192 (1987) 245  
14  CLEO Collaboration  $ {{\mathrm{B}^0}\overline{\mathrm{B}}^{0}} $ mixing at the \PGUP4s  PRL 62 (1989) 2233  
15  G. Altarelli and P. J. Franzini  $ {\mathrm{B}^0}\overline{\mathrm{B}}^{0} $ mixing within and beyond the standard model  Z. Phys. C 37 (1988) 271  
16  ALEPH Collaboration  A search for new quarks and leptons from $ \mathrm{Z^0} $ decay  PLB 236 (1990) 511  
17  OPAL Collaboration  A search for the top and $ \mathrm{b}^{'} $ quarks in hadronic $ \mathrm{Z^0} $ decays  PLB 236 (1990) 364  
18  ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations  Electroweak parameters of the $ \mathrm{Z^0} $ resonance and the standard model  PLB 276 (1992) 247  
19  ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations, and LEP Electroweak Working Group  A combination of preliminary LEP electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard model  LEP Note CERNPPE95172, 1995  
20  M. Lusignoli, L. Maiani, G. Martinelli, and L. Reina  Mixing and $ {CP} $ violation in $ \mathrm{K} $ and $ {\mathrm{B}} $mesons: a lattice QCD point of view  NPB 369 (1992) 139  
21  A. J. Buras  A 1993 look at the lower bound on the top quark mass from $ {CP} $ violation  PLB 317 (1993) 449  hepph/9307318 
22  CDF Collaboration  Observation of top quark production in $ {\overline{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions with the Collider Detector at Fermilab  PRL 74 (1995) 2626  hepex/9503002 
23  D0 Collaboration  Observation of the top quark  PRL 74 (1995) 2632  hepex/9503003 
24  D0 Collaboration  Observation of single topquark production  PRL 103 (2009) 092001  0903.0850 
25  CDF Collaboration  Observation of electroweak single topquark production  PRL 103 (2009) 092002  0903.0885 
26  CDF and D0 Collaborations  Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark using up to 9.7 fb$ ^{1} $ at the Tevatron  1608.01881  
27  C. Campagnari and M. Franklin  The discovery of the top quark  Rev. Mod. Phys. 69 (1997) 137  hepex/9608003 
28  J. M. Flynn and L. Randall  The electromagnetic penguin contribution to $ \epsilon^\prime/\epsilon $ for large top quark mass  PLB 224 (1989) 221  
29  G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. K. Harlander  The anatomy of $ \epsilon^\prime/\epsilon $ in the standard model  NPB 337 (1990) 313  
30  J. Erler and M. Schott  Electroweak precision tests of the standard model after the discovery of the Higgs noson  Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106 (2019) 68  1902.05142 
31  J. Haller et al.  Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on twoHiggsdoublet models  EPJC 78 (2018) 675  1803.01853 
32  ATLAS Collaboration  A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 52  2207.00092 
33  CMS Collaboration  A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery  Nature 607 (2022) 60  CMSHIG22001 2207.00043 
34  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark Yukawa coupling from $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ kinematic distributions in the dilepton final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD 102 (2020) 092013  CMSTOP19008 2009.07123 
35  G. Degrassi et al.  Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the standard model at NNLO  JHEP 08 (2012) 098  1205.6497 
36  S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch  The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the electroweak vacuum  PLB 716 (2012) 214  1207.0980 
37  S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, and L. Zeune  Implications of LHC search results on the W boson mass prediction in the MSSM  JHEP 12 (2013) 084  1311.1663 
38  F. Bezrukov, M. Y. Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Shaposhnikov  Higgs boson mass and new physics  JHEP 10 (2012) 140  1205.2893 
39  D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya  Dark matter detection, standard model parameters and intermediate scale supersymmetry  JHEP 04 (2021) 052  2011.12302 
40  W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler  Effective Lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavour conservation  NPB 268 (1986) 621  
41  G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi  The stronglyinteracting light Higgs  JHEP 06 (2007) 045  hepph/0703164 
42  B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek  Dimensionsix terms in the standard model Lagrangian  JHEP 10 (2010) 085  1008.4884 
43  J. Gao et al.  Simultaneous CTEQTEA extraction of PDFs and SMEFT parameters from jet and $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ data  JHEP 05 (2023) 003  2211.01094 
44  A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach, D. Guadagnoli, and G. Isidori  On the standard model prediction for $ \mathcal{B}({{\mathrm{B}}}{s,d}\to\mu^{+}\mu^{}) $  EPJC 72 (2012) 2172  1208.0934 
45  M. Misiak et al.  Updated nexttonexttoleadingorder QCD predictions for the weak radiative $ {\mathrm{B}} $meson decays  PRL 114 (2015) 221801  1503.01789 
46  M. Czakon et al.  The $ {(Q_7, Q_{1,2})} $ contribution to $ \overline{\mathrm{B}}\to\mathrm{X}_{s}\gamma $ at $ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_\mathrm{S}^2) $  JHEP 04 (2015) 168  1503.01791 
47  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section and the top quark mass in the dilepton channel in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 07 (2011) 049  CMSTOP11002 1105.5661 
48  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the topquark mass in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events with lepton+jets final states in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 12 (2012) 105  CMSTOP11015 1209.2319 
49  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the topquark mass in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events with dilepton final states in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  EPJC 72 (2012) 2202  CMSTOP11016 1209.2393 
50  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of masses in the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ system by kinematic endpoints in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  EPJC 73 (2013) 2494  CMSTOP11027 1304.5783 
51  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the topquark mass in alljets $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  EPJC 74 (2014) 2758  CMSTOP11017 1307.4617 
52  CMS Collaboration  Determination of the topquark pole mass and strong coupling constant from the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  PLB 728 (2014) 496  CMSTOP12022 1307.1907 
53  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass using protonproton data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  PRD 93 (2016) 072004  CMSTOP14022 1509.04044 
54  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section in the $ {\mathrm{e}\mu} $ channel in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 08 (2016) 029  CMSTOP13004 1603.02303 
55  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass using charged particles in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PRD 93 (2016) 092006  CMSTOP12030 1603.06536 
56  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the mass of the top quark in decays with a $ \mathrm{J}/\psi $ meson in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 8 TeV  JHEP 12 (2016) 123  CMSTOP15014 1608.03560 
57  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section using events with one lepton and at least one jet in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 09 (2017) 051  CMSTOP16006 1701.06228 
58  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass using single top quark events in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 77 (2017) 354  CMSTOP15001 1703.02530 
59  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the jet mass in highly boosted $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events from $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 77 (2017) 467  CMSTOP15015 1703.06330 
60  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass in the dileptonic $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ decay channel using the mass observables $ {M}_{\mathrm{b}\ell} $, $ {M}_{{\mathrm{T}2}} $, and $ m_{\mathrm{b}\ell\nu} $ in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PRD 96 (2017) 032002  CMSTOP15008 1704.06142 
61  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass with lepton+jets final states using $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 78 (2018) 891  CMSTOP17007 1805.01428 
62  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass in the alljets final state at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV and combination with the lepton+jets channel  EPJC 79 (2019) 313  CMSTOP17008 1812.10534 
63  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section, the top quark mass, and the strong coupling constant using dilepton events in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 79 (2019) 368  CMSTOP17001 1812.10505 
64  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ normalised multidifferential cross sections in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions  EPJC 80 (2020) 658  CMSTOP18004 1904.05237 
65  CMS Collaboration  Running of the top quark mass from protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 803 (2020) 135263  CMSTOP19007 1909.09193 
66  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the jet mass distribution and top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRL 124 (2020) 202001  CMSTOP19005 1911.03800 
67  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass using events with a single reconstructed top quark in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 12 (2021) 161  CMSTOP19009 2108.10407 
68  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  Combination of inclusive topquark pair production crosssection measurements using ATLAS and CMS data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  JHEP 07 (2023) 213  CMSTOP18014 2205.13830 
69  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark pole mass using $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ +jet events in the dilepton final state in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 07 (2023) 077  CMSTOP21008 2207.02270 
70  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section as a function of the jet mass and extraction of the top quark mass in hadronic decays of boosted top quarks  EPJC 83 (2023) 560  CMSTOP21012 2211.01456 
71  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass using a profile likelihood approach with the lepton+jets final states in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 83 (2023) 963  CMSTOP20008 2302.01967 
72  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  Combination of measurements of the top quark mass from data collected by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV  Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett, 2024  2402.08713 
73  CMS Collaboration  CMS physics technical design report, volume I: Detector performance and software  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2006001, CMSTDR8.1, 2006 CDS 

74  N. Kidonakis  NNNLO softgluon corrections for the topquark $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ and rapidity distributions  PRD 91 (2015) 031501  1411.2633 
75  N. Kidonakis  Topquark doubledifferential distributions at approximate N3LO  PRD 101 (2020) 074006  1912.10362 
76  M. Czakon, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov  Highprecision differential predictions for topquark pairs at the LHC  PRL 116 (2016) 082003  1511.00549 
77  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 
78  M. Czakon et al.  Toppair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW  JHEP 10 (2017) 186  1705.04105 
79  M. Czakon et al.  Resummation for (boosted) topquark pair production at NNLO+NNLL' in QCD  JHEP 05 (2018) 149  1803.07623 
80  S. Catani et al.  Topquark pair production at the LHC: fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO  JHEP 07 (2019) 100  1906.06535 
81  M. Czakon, A. Mitov, and R. Poncelet  NNLO QCD corrections to leptonic observables in topquark pair production and decay  JHEP 05 (2021) 212  2008.11133 
82  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of the top quark pair production cross section in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13.6 TeV  JHEP 08 (2023) 204  CMSTOP22012 2303.10680 
83  S. Cortese and R. Petronzio  The single top production channel at Tevatron energies  PLB 253 (1991) 494  
84  S. S. D. Willenbrock and D. A. Dicus  Production of heavy quarks from Wgluon fusion  PRD 34 (1986) 155  
85  J. Campbell, T. Neumann, and Z. Sullivan  Singletopquark production in the $ t $channel at NNLO  JHEP 02 (2021) 040  2012.01574 
86  M. Brucherseifer, F. Caola, and K. Melnikov  On the NNLO QCD corrections to singletop production at the LHC  PLB 736 (2014) 58  1404.7116 
87  E. L. Berger, J. Gao, and H. X. Zhu  Differential distributions for $ t $channel single topquark production and decay at nexttonexttoleading order in QCD  JHEP 11 (2017) 158  1708.09405 
88  N. Kidonakis  Nexttonexttoleading logarithm resummation for $ s $channel single top quark production  PRD 81 (2010) 054028  1001.5034 
89  N. Kidonakis  Twoloop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a $ \mathrm{W^} $ or $ \mathrm{H}^{} $  PRD 82 (2010) 054018  1005.4451 
90  M. Je \.z abek and J. H. Kühn  QCD corrections to semileptonic decays of heavy quarks  NPB 314 (1989) 1  
91  I. Bigi et al.  Production and decay properties of ultraheavy quarks  PLB 181 (1986) 157  
92  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
93  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
94  CMS Collaboration  Technical proposal for the PhaseII upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2015010, CMSTDR1502, 2015 CDS 

95  CMS Collaboration  Pileup removal algorithms  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2014 CMSPASJME14001 
CMSPASJME14001 
96  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
97  D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran  Pileup per particle identification  JHEP 10 (2014) 059  1407.6013 
98  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
99  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FASTJET user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
100  CMS Collaboration  Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector  JINST 14 (2019) P07004  CMSJME17001 1903.06078 
101  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
102  CMS Collaboration  Identification of heavyflavour jets with the CMS detector in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 13 TeV  JINST 13 (2018) P05011  CMSBTV16002 1712.07158 
103  D0 Collaboration  Direct measurement of the top quark mass at D0  PRD 58 (1998) 052001  hepex/9801025 
104  J. D'Hondt et al.  Fitting of event topologies with external kinematic constraints in CMS  CMS Note CMSNOTE2006023, 2006  
105  L. Sonnenschein  Analytical solution of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ dilepton equations  PRD 73 (2006) 054015  hepph/0603011 
106  S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi, and P. Nason  A positiveweight nexttoleadingorder Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction  JHEP 09 (2007) 126  0707.3088 
107  P. Nason  A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms  JHEP 11 (2004) 040  hepph/0409146 
108  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 
109  S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari  Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method  JHEP 11 (2007) 070  0709.2092 
110  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
111  J. Alwall et al.  MadGraph 5: going beyond  JHEP 06 (2011) 128  1106.0522 
112  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
113  Particle Data Group , W. M. Yao et al.  Review of particle physics  J. Phys. G. 33 (2006) 1  
114  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 
115  T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands  PYTHIA6.4 physics and manual  JHEP 05 (2006) 026  hepph/0603175 
116  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV and comparison with $ \sqrt{s}= $ 0.9 TeV  JHEP 09 (2011) 109  CMSQCD10010 1107.0330 
117  CMS Collaboration  Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements  EPJC 76 (2016) 155  CMSGEN14001 1512.00815 
118  A. Buckley et al.  Systematic event generator tuning for the LHC  EPJC 65 (2010) 331  0907.2973 
119  CMS Collaboration  Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2016 CMSPASTOP16021 
CMSPASTOP16021 
120  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
121  W. Giele et al.  The QCD/SM working group: Summary report  in Proc. 2nd Les Houches Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders: Les Houches, France, 2001 PhysTeV 200 (2001) 275 
hepph/0204316 
122  M. R. Whalley, D. Bourilkov, and R. C. Group  The Les Houches accord PDFs (LHAPDF) and LHAGLUE  in Proc. HERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the Implications of HERA and LHC Physics: Meyrin, Switzerland, 2004 March 2 (2004) 575 
hepph/0508110 
123  D. Bourilkov, R. C. Group, and M. R. Whalley  LHAPDF: PDF use from the Tevatron to the LHC  in Proc. TeV4LHC Workshop, 4th Meeting: Batavia IL, USA, 2005  hepph/0605240 
124  H.L. Lai et al.  New parton distributions for collider physics  PRD 82 (2010) 074024  1007.2241 
125  A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt  Parton distributions for the LHC  EPJC 63 (2009) 189  0901.0002 
126  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions with LHC data  NPB 867 (2013) 244  1207.1303 
127  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC run II  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
128  S. Dulat et al.  New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics  PRD 93 (2016) 033006  1506.07443 
129  L. A. HarlandLang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne  Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs  EPJC 75 (2015) 204  1412.3989 
130  M. Cacciari et al.  The $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ crosssection at 1.8 and 1.96 TeV: a study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence  JHEP 04 (2004) 068  hepph/0303085 
131  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 
132  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production with additional jet activity, including b quark jets, in the dilepton decay channel using $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 76 (2016) 379  CMSTOP12041 1510.03072 
133  S. Mrenna and P. Skands  Automated partonshower variations in PYTHIA8  PRD 94 (2016) 074005  1605.08352 
134  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of differential cross sections of top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 06 (2018) 002  CMSTOP16014 1803.03991 
135  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of jet substructure observables in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events from protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD 98 (2018) 092014  CMSTOP17013 1808.07340 
136  R. Frederix and S. Frixione  Merging meets matching in MC@NLO  JHEP 12 (2012) 061  1209.6215 
137  S. Frixione, S. Amoroso, and S. Mrenna  Matrix element corrections in the PYTHIA8 parton shower in the context of matched simulations at nexttoleading order  EPJC 83 (2023) 970  2308.06389 
138  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV  PRD 95 (2017) 092001  CMSTOP16008 1610.04191 
139  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD 97 (2018) 112003  CMSTOP17002 1803.08856 
140  P. Z. Skands  Tuning Monte Carlo generators: The Perugia tunes  PRD 82 (2010) 074018  1005.3457 
141  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
142  CMS Collaboration  Pseudorapidity distribution of charged hadrons in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 751 (2015) 143  CMSFSQ15001 1507.05915 
143  CMS Collaboration  Underlying event measurements with leading particles and jets in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2015 CMSPASFSQ15007 
CMSPASFSQ15007 
144  CMS Collaboration  Study of the underlying event in top quark pair production in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 13 TeV  EPJC 79 (2019) 123  CMSTOP17015 1807.02810 
145  M. H. Seymour and A. Si \'o dmok  Constraining MPI models using $ \sigma_{\text{eff}} $ and recent Tevatron and LHC underlying event data  JHEP 10 (2013) 113  1307.5015 
146  J. Pumplin et al.  New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis  JHEP 07 (2002) 012  hepph/0201195 
147  M. Bähr et al.  HERWIG++ physics and manual  EPJC 58 (2008) 639  0803.0883 
148  J. Bellm et al.  HERWIG 7.0/ HERWIG++ 3.0 release note  EPJC 76 (2016) 196  1512.01178 
149  T. Gleisberg et al.  Event generation with SHERPA 1.1  JHEP 02 (2009) 007  0811.4622 
150  F. Cascioli, P. Maierhöfer, and S. Pozzorini  Scattering amplitudes with open loops  PRL 108 (2012) 111601  1111.5206 
151  S. Schumann and F. Krauss  A parton shower algorithm based on CataniSeymour dipole factorisation  JHEP 03 (2008) 038  0709.1027 
152  CMS Collaboration  CMS PYTHIA8 colour reconnection tunes based on underlyingevent data  EPJC 83 (2023) 587  CMSGEN17002 2205.02905 
153  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 
154  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of colour flow with the jet pull angle in $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events using the ATLAS detector at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PLB 750 (2015) 475  1506.05629 
155  M. G. Bowler  $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ production of heavy quarks in the string model  Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 169  
156  ALEPH Collaboration  Study of the fragmentation of b quarks into $ {\mathrm{B}} $ mesons at the Z peak  PLB 512 (2001) 30  hepex/0106051 
157  DELPHI Collaboration  A study of the bquark fragmentation function with the DELPHI detector at \mboxLEP I and an averaged distribution obtained at the Z pole  EPJC 71 (2011) 1557  1102.4748 
158  OPAL Collaboration  Inclusive analysis of the b quark fragmentation function in Z decays at LEP  EPJC 29 (2003) 463  hepex/0210031 
159  SLD Collaboration  Measurement of the bquark fragmentation function in $ \mathrm{Z^0} $ decays  PRD 65 (2002) 092006  hepex/0202031 
160  C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas  Scaling violations in inclusive $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ annihilation spectra  PRD 27 (1983) 105  
161  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS missing transverse momentum reconstruction in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  JINST 10 (2015) P02006  CMSJME13003 1411.0511 
162  CMS Collaboration  Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 16 (2021) P05014  CMSEGM17001 2012.06888 
163  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 
164  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
165  CMS Collaboration  Absolute calibration of the luminosity measurement at CMS: Winter 2012 update  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2012 CMSPASSMP12008 

166  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity based on pixel cluster countingSummer 2013 update  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2013 CMSPASLUM13001 
CMSPASLUM13001 
167  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 
168  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMSPASLUM17004 
CMSPASLUM17004 
169  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMSPASLUM18002 
CMSPASLUM18002 
170  S. Schmitt  TUnfold, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics  JINST 7 (2012) T10003  1205.6201 
171  S. Schmitt  Data unfolding methods in high energy physics  in Proc. 12th Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum (Confinement XII): Thessaloniki, Greece, 2017 EPJ Web Conf. 137 (2017) 11008 
1611.01927 
172  G. D'Agostini  A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem  NIM A 362 (1995) 487  
173  G. D'Agostini  Improved iterative Bayesian unfolding  in Proc. Alliance Workshop on Unfolding and Data Correction: Hamburg, Germany, 2010  1010.0632 
174  A. Höcker and V. Kartvelishvili  SVD approach to data unfolding  NIM A 372 (1996) 469  hepph/9509307 
175  A. N. Tikhonov  On the solution of illposed problems and the method of regularization  Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 151 (1963) 3  
176  L. Brenner et al.  Comparison of unfolding methods using RooFitUnfold  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) 2050145  1910.14654 
177  M. Stanley, P. Patil, and M. Kuusela  Uncertainty quantification for widebin unfolding: oneatatime strict bounds and prioroptimized confidence intervals  JINST 17 (2022) P10013  2111.01091 
178  CMS Collaboration  Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level  CMS Note CMSNOTE2017004, 2017 CDS 

179  A. Buckley et al.  RIVET user manual  Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 2803  1003.0694 
180  C. Bierlich et al.  Robust independent validation of experiment and theory: RIVET version 3  SciPost Phys. 8 (2020) 026  1912.05451 
181  F. Herren and M. Steinhauser  Version 3 of RunDec and CRunDec  Comput. Phys. Commun. 224 (2018) 333  1703.03751 
182  A. H. Hoang, C. Lepenik, and V. Mateu  REvolver: Automated running and matching of couplings and masses in QCD  Comput. Phys. Commun. 270 (2022) 108145  2102.01085 
183  J. Mazzitelli  NNLO study of topquark mass renormalization scheme uncertainties in Higgs boson production  JHEP 09 (2022) 065  2206.14667 
184  A. H. Hoang et al.  The MSR mass and the $ \mathcal{O}({\Lambda}_{{\mathrm{QCD}}}) $ renormalon sum rule  JHEP 04 (2018) 003  1704.01580 
185  R. Tarrach  The pole mass in perturbative QCD  NPB 183 (1981) 384  
186  A. S. Kronfeld  Perturbative pole mass in QCD  PRD 58 (1998) 051501  hepph/9805215 
187  M. Beneke, P. Marquard, P. Nason, and M. Steinhauser  On the ultimate uncertainty of the top quark pole mass  PLB 775 (2017) 63  1605.03609 
188  A. H. Hoang, C. Lepenik, and M. Preisser  On the light massive flavor dependence of the large order asymptotic behavior and the ambiguity of the pole mass  JHEP 09 (2017) 099  1706.08526 
189  A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, A. Pathak, and I. W. Stewart  Extracting a short distance top mass with light grooming  PRD 100 (2019) 074021  1708.02586 
190  B. Bachu et al.  Boosted top quarks in the peak region with N3LL resummation  PRD 104 (2021) 014026  2012.12304 
191  A. H. Hoang, S. Plätzer, and D. Samitz  On the cutoff dependence of the quark mass parameter in angular ordered parton showers  JHEP 10 (2018) 200  1807.06617 
192  DELPHI Collaboration  Measurement of the mass and width of the W boson in $ \mathrm{e}^+ \mathrm{e}^ $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 161209 GeV  EPJC 55 (2008) 1  0803.2534 
193  R. Barlow and C. Beeston  Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples  Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219  
194  J. S. Conway  Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra  in Proc. 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT ): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011 link 
1103.0354 
195  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass in the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \to $dilepton channel from $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PLB 761 (2016) 350  1606.02179 
196  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass in the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \to $lepton+jets and $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \to $dilepton channels using $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV ATLAS data  EPJC 75 (2015) 330  1503.05427 
197  ATLAS Collaboration  Measurement of the top quark mass in the $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \to $lepton+jets channel from $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV ATLAS data and combination with previous results  EPJC 79 (2019) 290  1810.01772 
198  M. Aliev et al.  hathor: Hadronic top and heavy quarks cross section calculator  Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 1034  1007.1327 
199  P. Kant et al.  hathor for single topquark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single topquark production in hadronic collisions  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 74  1406.4403 
200  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the single top quark and antiquark production cross sections in the $ t $ channel and their ratio in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PLB 800 (2020) 135042  CMSTOP17011 1812.10514 
201  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 
202  R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli  Singletop $ t $channel hadroproduction in the fourflavors scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO  JHEP 09 (2012) 130  1207.5391 
203  ATLAS Collaboration  Fiducial, total and differential crosssection measurements of $ t $channel single topquark production in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at 8 TeV using data collected by the ATLAS detector  EPJC 77 (2017) 531  1702.02859 
204  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of differential cross sections and charge ratios for $ t $channel single top quark production in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  EPJC 80 (2020) 370  CMSTOP17023 1907.08330 
205  M. J. Oreglia  A study of the reactions $ {\psi^\prime\to\gamma\gamma\psi} $  PhD thesis, Stanford University, SLACR236, 1980 link 

206  Belle Collaboration  A detailed test of the CsI(T\ell) calorimeter for BELLE with photon beams of energy between 20 MeV and 5.4 GeV  NIM A 441 (2000) 401  
207  CMS Collaboration  Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS  JINST 6 (2011) P11002  CMSJME10011 1107.4277 
208  O. W. Greenberg  $ {CPT} $ violation implies violation of Lorentz invariance  PRL 89 (2002) 231602  hepph/0201258 
209  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the mass difference between top and antitop quarks  JHEP 06 (2012) 109  CMSTOP11019 1204.2807 
210  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the mass difference between top quark and antiquark in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  PLB 770 (2017) 50  CMSTOP12031 1610.09551 
211  BASE Collaboration  A 16partspertrillion measurement of the antiprotontoproton chargemass ratio  Nature 601 (2022) 53  
212  T. Cheng, M. Lindner, and M. Sen  Implications of a matterantimatter mass asymmetry in Penningtrap experiments  PLB 844 (2023) 138068  2210.10819 
213  P. Azzi et al.  Report from working group 1: Standard model physics at the HLLHC and HELHC  CERN Report CERNLPCC201803, 2019 link 
1902.04070 
214  A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart  Top mass measurements from jets and the Tevatron topquark mass  in Proc. 2nd International Workshop on TopQuark Physics (TOP): La Biodola, Italy, 2008 Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 185 (2008) 220 
0808.0222 
215  A. H. Hoang  The top mass: interpretation and theoretical uncertainties  in Proc. 7th International Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP): Cannes, France, 2014  1412.3649 
216  R. Baumeister and S. Weinzierl  Cutoff dependence of the thrust peak position in the dipole shower  EPJC 80 (2020) 843  2004.01657 
217  S. Makarov, K. Melnikov, P. Nason, and M. A. Ozcelik  Linear power corrections to top quark pair production in hadron collisions  JHEP 01 (2024) 074  2308.05526 
218  J. Kieseler, K. Lipka, and S.O. Moch  Calibration of the topquark Monte Carlo mass  PRL 116 (2016) 162001  1511.00841 
219  M. Butenschoen et al.  Top quark mass calibration for Monte Carlo event generators  PRL 117 (2016) 232001  1608.01318 
220  S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart  Jets from massive unstable particles: Topmass determination  PRD 77 (2008) 074010  hepph/0703207 
221  S. Fleming, A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, and I. W. Stewart  Top jets in the peak region: Factorization analysis with nexttoleadinglog resummation  PRD 77 (2008) 114003  0711.2079 
222  ATLAS Collaboration  Towards a precise interpretation for the top quark mass parameter in ATLAS Monte Carlo samples  ATLAS PUB Note ATLPHYSPUB2021034, 2021  
223  D. Krohn, J. Thaler, and L.T. Wang  Jet trimming  JHEP 02 (2010) 084  0912.1342 
224  A. H. Hoang, S. Mantry, A. Pathak, and I. W. Stewart  Nonperturbative corrections to soft drop jet mass  JHEP 12 (2019) 002  1906.11843 
225  B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, O. L. Jin, and V. Mateu  Top quark mass calibration for Monte Carlo event generatorsan update  JHEP 12 (2023) 065  2309.00547 
226  D0 Collaboration  Determination of the pole and $ \overline{\mathrm{MS}} $ masses of the top quark from the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section  PLB 703 (2011) 422  1104.2887 
227  CMS Collaboration  Measurement and QCD analysis of doubledifferential inclusive jet cross sections in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 02 (2022) 142  CMSSMP20011 2111.10431 
228  S. Biswas, K. Melnikov, and M. Schulze  Nexttoleading order QCD effects and the top quark mass measurements at the LHC  JHEP 08 (2010) 048  1006.0910 
229  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section in the dilepton channel in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV  JHEP 11 (2012) 067  CMSTOP11005 1208.2671 
230  K. Melnikov and M. Schulze  NLO QCD corrections to top quark pair production and decay at hadron colliders  JHEP 08 (2009) 049  0907.3090 
231  W. Bernreuther and Z.G. Si  Distributions and correlations for top quark pair production and decay at the Tevatron and LHC  NPB 837 (2010) 90  1003.3926 
232  S. Moch et al.  High precision fundamental constants at the TeVns scale  1405.4781  
233  G. Heinrich et al.  NLO QCD corrections to $ {\mathrm{W^+}\mathrm{W^}\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}} $ production with leptonic decays in the light of top quark mass and asymmetry measurements  JHEP 06 (2014) 158  1312.6659 
234  M. Dowling and S.O. Moch  Differential distributions for topquark hadroproduction with a running mass  EPJC 74 (2014) 3167  1305.6422 
235  S. Alekhin et al.  HERAFitter: Open source QCD fit project  EPJC 75 (2015) 304  1410.4412 
236  P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn  Quark mass and field anomalous dimensions to $ \mathcal{O}({\alpha_\mathrm{S}}^5) $  JHEP 10 (2014) 076  1402.6611 
237  T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and Y. Schröder  Fiveloop quark mass and field anomalous dimensions for a general gauge group  JHEP 01 (2017) 081  1612.05512 
238  L. Mihaila  Precision calculations in supersymmetric theories  Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013 (2013) 607807  1310.6178 
239  N. D. Christensen and R. Shrock  Implications of dynamical generation of standardmodel fermion masses  PRL 94 (2005) 241801  hepph/0501294 
240  S. Catani et al.  Topquark pair hadroproduction at NNLO: differential predictions with the $ \overline{\mathrm{MS}} $ mass  JHEP 08 (2020) 027  2005.00557 
241  M. M. Defranchis, J. Kieseler, K. Lipka, and J. Mazzitelli  Running of the top quark mass at NNLO in QCD  2208.11399  
242  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the inclusive $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ cross section in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 5.02 TeV using final states with at least one charged lepton  JHEP 03 (2018) 115  CMSTOP16023 1711.03143 
243  H1 and ZEUS Collaborations  Combination of measurements of inclusive deep inelastic $ {\mathrm{e}^\pm\mathrm{p}} $ scattering cross sections and QCD analysis of HERA data  EPJC 75 (2015) 580  1506.06042 
244  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the differential cross section and charge asymmetry for inclusive $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}\to\mathrm{W}^{\pm}+\mathrm{X}} $ production at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV  EPJC 76 (2016) 469  CMSSMP14022 1603.01803 
245  M. Guzzi, K. Lipka, and S.O. Moch  Topquark pair production at hadron colliders: differential cross section and phenomenological applications with DiffTop  JHEP 01 (2015) 082  1406.0386 
246  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of doubledifferential cross sections for top quark pair production in $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV and impact on parton distribution functions  EPJC 77 (2017) 459  CMSTOP14013 1703.01630 
247  S. Alioli et al.  A new observable to measure the topquark mass at hadron colliders  EPJC 73 (2013) 2438  1303.6415 
248  M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi  Heavyquark correlations in hadron collisions at nexttoleading order  NPB 373 (1992) 295  
249  S. Dittmaier, P. Uwer, and S. Weinzierl  NLO QCD corrections to $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} + $jet production at hadron colliders  PRL 98 (2007) 262002  hepph/0703120 
250  G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, and M. Worek  Dominant QCD backgrounds in Higgs boson analyses at the LHC: A study of $ {\mathrm{p}\mathrm{p}}\to{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} + $ 2 jets at nexttoleading order  PRL 104 (2010) 162002  1002.4009 
251  G. Bevilacqua, M. Czakon, C. G. Papadopoulos, and M. Worek  Hadronic topquark pair production in association with two jets at nexttoleading order QCD  PRD 84 (2011) 114017  1108.2851 
252  Particle Data Group , M. Tanabashi et al.  Review of particle physics  PRD 98 (2018) 030001  
253  Y. Kiyo et al.  Topquark pair production near threshold at LHC  EPJC 60 (2009) 375  0812.0919 
254  J. Piclum and C. Schwinn  Softgluon and Coulomb corrections to hadronic topquark pair production beyond NNLO  JHEP 03 (2018) 164  1801.05788 
255  T. Mäkelä, A. Hoang, K. Lipka, and S.O. Moch  Investigation of the scale dependence in the MSR and $ \overline{\mathrm{MS}} $ top quark mass schemes for the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ invariant mass differential cross section using LHC data  JHEP 09 (2023) 037  2301.03546 
256  S. Alioli, S.O. Moch, and P. Uwer  Hadronic topquark pairproduction with one jet and parton showering  JHEP 01 (2012) 137  1110.5251 
257  S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, and S. Moch  NLO PDFs from the ABMP16 fit  EPJC 78 (2018) 477  1803.07537 
258  T.J. Hou et al.  Progress in the CTEQTEA NNLO global QCD analysis  1908.11394  
259  S. Alioli et al.  Phenomenology of $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} {\mathrm{j}}+{\mathrm{X}} $ production at the LHC  JHEP 05 (2022) 146  2202.07975 
260  A. Babaev et al.  Impact of beambeam effects on absolute luminosity calibrations at the CERN Large Hadron Collider  EPJC 84 (2024) 17  2306.10394 
261  A. H. Hoang et al.  Topantitop pair production close to threshold: Synopsis of recent NNLO results  in Proc. 4th Workshop of the 2nd ECFA/DESY Study on Physics and Detectors for a Linear ElectronPositron Collider: Oxford, UK, 2000 link 
hepph/0001286 
262  K. Hagiwara, Y. Sumino, and H. Yokoya  Boundstate effects on top quark production at hadron colliders  PLB 666 (2008) 71  0804.1014 
263  W.L. Ju et al.  Top quark pair production near threshold: single/double distributions and mass determination  JHEP 06 (2020) 158  2004.03088 
264  D. Britzger, K. Rabbertz, F. Stober, and M. Wobisch  New features in version 2 of the fastNLO project  fastNLO Collaboration, in Proc. 20th International Workshop on DeepInelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (DIS): Bonn, Germany, 2012 link 
1208.3641 
265  T. Carli et al.  A posteriori inclusion of parton density functions in NLO QCD finalstate calculations at hadron colliders: the APPLGRID project  EPJC 66 (2010) 503  0911.2985 
266  D. Britzger et al.  NNLO interpolation grids for jet production at the LHC  EPJC 82 (2022) 930  2207.13735 
267  A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov  Notes on interplay between the QCD and EW perturbative corrections to the polerunningtotopquark mass ratio  JETP Lett. 115 (2022) 704  2201.12073 
268  S. Dittmaier and H. Rzehak  Electroweak renormalization based on gaugeinvariant vacuum expectation values of nonlinear Higgs representations. Part I. Standard model  JHEP 05 (2022) 125  2203.07236 
269  G. P. Salam  Towards jetography  EPJC 67 (2010) 637  0906.1833 
270  M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam  Towards an understanding of jet substructure  JHEP 09 (2013) 029  1307.0007 
271  R. Kogler  Advances in jet substructure at the LHC: Algorithms, measurements and searches for new physical phenomena  Springer Cham, 2021 ISBN 9783030728588 

272  A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and B. Nachman  Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A review of recent advances in theory and machine learning  Phys. Rept. 841 (2020) 1  1709.04464 
273  R. Kogler et al.  Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider  Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (2019) 045003  1803.06991 
274  CMS Collaboration  Measurements of the differential jet cross section as a function of the jet mass in dijet events from protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  JHEP 11 (2018) 113  CMSSMP16010 1807.05974 
275  C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke  Summing Sudakov logarithms in $ {{\mathrm{B}}\to\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{s}}\gamma} $ in effective field theory  PRD 63 (2000) 014006  hepph/0005275 
276  C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart  An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays  PRD 63 (2001) 114020  hepph/0011336 
277  C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart  Invariant operators in collinear effective theory  PLB 516 (2001) 134  hepph/0107001 
278  C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart  Softcollinear factorization in effective field theory  PRD 65 (2002) 054022  hepph/0109045 
279  C. W. Bauer et al.  Hard scattering factorization from effective field theory  PRD 66 (2002) 014017  hepph/0202088 
280  A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler  Soft drop  JHEP 05 (2014) 146  1402.2657 
281  I. W. Stewart et al.  XCone: $ {N} $jettiness as an exclusive cone jet algorithm  JHEP 11 (2015) 072  1508.01516 
282  Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber  Better jet clustering algorithms  JHEP 08 (1997) 001  hepph/9707323 
283  M. Wobisch and T. Wengler  Hadronization corrections to jet cross sections in deepinelastic scattering  in Proc. Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics: Hamburg, Germany, 1998  hepph/9907280 
284  J. Thaler and T. F. Wilkason  Resolving boosted jets with XCone  JHEP 12 (2015) 051  1508.01518 
285  I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn  $ {N} $ jettiness: An inclusive event shape to veto jets  PRL 105 (2010) 092002  1004.2489 
286  J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg  Identifying boosted objects with $ {N} $subjettiness  JHEP 03 (2011) 015  1011.2268 
287  J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg  Maximizing boosted top identification by minimizing $ {N} $subjettiness  JHEP 02 (2012) 093  1108.2701 
288  G. Apollinari et al.  HighLuminosity Large Hadron Collider (HLLHC): Preliminary design report  CERN Technical Proposal CERN2015005, 2015 link 

289  CMS Collaboration  The Phase2 upgrade of the CMS tracker  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2017009, CMSTDR014, 2017 link 

290  CMS Collaboration  The Phase2 upgrade of the CMS muon detectors  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2017012, CMSTDR016, 2017 CDS 

291  CMS Collaboration  A MIP timing detector for the CMS Phase2 upgrade  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2019003, CMSTDR020, 2019 CDS 

292  CMS Collaboration  The Phase2 upgrade of the CMS endcap calorimeter  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2017023, CMSTDR019, 2017 CDS 

293  CMS Collaboration  The Phase2 upgrade of the CMS barrel calorimeters  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2017011, CMSTDR015, 2017 CDS 

294  CMS Collaboration  ECFA 2016: Prospects for selected standard model measurements with the CMS experiment at the HighLuminosity LHC  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMSPASFTR16006 
CMSPASFTR16006 
295  CMS Collaboration  Expected performance of the physics objects with the upgraded CMS detector at the HLLHC  CMS Note CMSNOTE2018006, 2018 CDS 

296  CMS Collaboration  The Phase2 upgrade of the CMS beam radiation, instrumentation, and luminosity detectors  CMS Technical Proposal CERNLHCC2021008, CMSTDR023, 2021 CDS 

297  A. Dainese et al.  Physics at the HLLHC, and perspectives at the HELHC  CERN Report CERN2019007, 2019 link 

298  H. Paukkunen and P. Zurita  PDF reweighting in the Hessian matrix approach  JHEP 12 (2014) 100  1402.6623 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 