CMS-PAS-SMP-20-016

CMS-PAS-SMP-20-016
Measurement of the electroweak production of Z $\gamma$ and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and constraints on dimension 8 operators
CMS Collaboration
March 2021

Abstract: A measurement of the electroweak (EW) production of a Z boson, a photon, and two jets (Z $\gamma$ jj) in proton-proton collisions and constraints on anomalous quartic gauge couplings are presented. Proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb $^{-1}$ , collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, at a center of mass collision energy of $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV are used. The signal is extracted by requiring a large dijet invariant mass ( $m_{jj}$ ) and a large pseudorapidity separation between the two jets ( $\|\Delta\eta_{jj}\|$ ). The fiducial cross section measured for the EW production is $\sigma_{\text{EW}} =$ 5.21 $\pm$ 0.76 fb = 5.21 $\pm$ 0.52 (stat) $\pm$ 0.56 (syst) fb. The observed and expected signal significance is higher than 5 standard deviations. Differential cross sections as functions of the photon, leptons and jets leading transverse momenta distributions and the $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta\eta_{jj}\|$ two-dimensional distribution are measured. Exclusion limits on the dimension-eight operators $M_{0-7}$ and $T_{0-2,5-9}$ in the effective field theory framework at 95% confidence level are reported.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to PRD. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures & Tables	Summary	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-c: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-d: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-e: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 1-f: Representative Feynman diagrams for Z $\gamma$ jj production. The diagrams (except lower right) involve only EW vertices: (upper left) bremsstrahlung, (upper center) multiperipheral, (upper right) VBF with TGCs, (lower left) VBS via W boson, (lower center) VBS with QGC, while the lower right diagram represents a QCD-induced contribution.
png pdf	Figure 2: The pre-fit $m_{jj}$ distributions for the dilepton + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ events are shown on the left for the dielectron and on the right for the dimuon categories with three years combined data-taking. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contribution. The black points with error bars represent the data and their uncertainties, while the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty on the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The bottom pad shows the ratio of the data to the expectation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: The pre-fit $m_{jj}$ distributions for the dilepton + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ events are shown on the left for the dielectron and on the right for the dimuon categories with three years combined data-taking. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contribution. The black points with error bars represent the data and their uncertainties, while the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty on the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The bottom pad shows the ratio of the data to the expectation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: The pre-fit $m_{jj}$ distributions for the dilepton + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ events are shown on the left for the dielectron and on the right for the dimuon categories with three years combined data-taking. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contribution. The black points with error bars represent the data and their uncertainties, while the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty on the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The bottom pad shows the ratio of the data to the expectation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 3: The pre-fit $m_{jj}$ distributions for the dilepton + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ events are shown on the left for the dielectron and on the right for the dimuon categories with three years combined data-taking. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contribution. The black points with error bars represent the data and their uncertainties, while the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty on the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The bottom pad shows the ratio of the data to the expectation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: The pre-fit $m_{jj}$ distributions for the dilepton + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ events are shown on the left for the dielectron and on the right for the dimuon categories with three years combined data-taking. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contribution. The black points with error bars represent the data and their uncertainties, while the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty on the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The bottom pad shows the ratio of the data to the expectation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: The pre-fit $m_{jj}$ distributions for the dilepton + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ events are shown on the left for the dielectron and on the right for the dimuon categories with three years combined data-taking. The data are compared to the sum of the signal and the background contribution. The black points with error bars represent the data and their uncertainties, while the hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainty on the combined signal and background expectations. The last bin includes overflow events. The bottom pad shows the ratio of the data to the expectation. The last bin includes overflow events.
png pdf	Figure 4: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ of [2.5, 4.5], (4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ of [2.5, 4.5], (4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ of [2.5, 4.5], (4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 5: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ of [2.5, 4.5], (4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ of [2.5, 4.5], (4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: The post-fit 2D distributions of the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ in bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $\|\Delta \eta _{\mathrm {jj}}\|$ of [2.5, 4.5], (4.5, 6.0], and $>$ 6.0. The data are compared to the signal and background in the predictions. The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{jj}$ of [150, 300), [300, 400), and [400,500). The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{jj}$ of [150, 300), [300, 400), and [400,500). The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{jj}$ of [150, 300), [300, 400), and [400,500). The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{jj}$ of [150, 300), [300, 400), and [400,500). The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{jj}$ of [150, 300), [300, 400), and [400,500). The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: The post-fit distributions in the control region for the dielectron (left) and dimuon (right) + $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ categories as a function of $m_\mathrm {jj}$ . The horizontal axis is split into bins of $m_{jj}$ of [150, 300), [300, 400), and [400,500). The black points with error bars represent the data and statistical uncertainties of data, the hatched bands represent the full uncertainties of the predictions.
png pdf	Figure 8: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 8-c: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 8-d: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 9: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 9-c: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 9-d: Unfolded differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ , leading jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Figure 10: The $m_{\mathrm{Z} \gamma}$ distribution for events satisfying the aQGC region selection, which is used to set constraints on the anomalous coupling parameters. The bins of $m_{\mathrm{Z} \gamma}$ are [100, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 2000) GeV, where the last bin includes overflow. The red line represents a nonzero $F_{\mathrm {T,8}}$ value and the blue line represents a nonzero $F_{\mathrm {T,9}}$ value, which would significantly enhance the yields at high $m_{\mathrm{Z} \gamma}$ . The hatched bands represent the statistical uncertainties in the predictions.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Summary of the five sets of event-selection criteria used to define events in the control region selection, EW signal extraction, fiducial cross section measurement region, and region used to search for aQGC contributions.
png pdf	Table 2: The impact of the systematic uncertainties on the EW signal strength measurement.
png pdf	Table 3: Post-fit signal and background yields and observed event counts in data after the selection in the search for EW signal. The $\gamma _{\text {barrel}}$ and $\gamma _{\text {endcap}}$ represent events with photons in the ECAL barrel and endcaps, respectively.
png pdf	Table 4: The signal strengths and differential cross section from expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ , $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{j_1}$ , $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell _1}$ observables for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Table 5: The signal strengths and differential cross section from expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of 2D $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ observables for EW Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Table 6: The signal strengths and differential cross section from expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ , $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{j_1}$ , $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell _1}$ observables for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Table 7: The signal strengths and differential cross section from expectation and fit calculated as part of the unfolding of 2D $m_{jj}$ - $\|\Delta \eta _{jj}\|$ observables for EW+QCD Z $\gamma$ jj.
png pdf	Table 8: The 95% CL expected and observed exclusion limits for $F_{\mathrm {M}_{0-7}}$ and $F_{\mathrm {T}_{0-2,5-9}}$ parameters. The observed limits without considering the systematic uncertainties are also reported. The last column presents the scattering energy values for which the amplitude would violate unitarity for the observed value of the aQGC parameter.

Summary

This note presents a measurement of the electroweak (EW) production of a Z boson, a photon, and two jets (Z

$\gamma$ jj) in

$\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV data corresponding to 137

$^{-1}$ fb of proton-proton collisions recorded by the CMS detector. Events were selected by requiring two opposite sign leptons with the same flavor from Z boson decaying, one identified photon, and two jets that have a large separation in pseudorapidity and a large dijet mass. The cross section for EW Z

$\gamma$ jj production is 5.21

$\pm$ 0.52 (stat)

$\pm$ 0.56 (syst) fb

$=$ 5.21

$\pm$ 0.76 fb, and the fiducial cross section of EW and QCD-induced production is 14.7

$\pm$ 0.80 (stat)

$\pm$ 1.26 (syst) fb

$=$ 14.7

$\pm$ 1.53 fb. The observed and expected signal significance is higher than 5 SD. Differential cross sections are measured for several observables and compared to standard model predictions computed at leading order. Within the uncertainties, the measurements agree with the predictions. Constraints set on the dimension-eight operators

$M_{0-7}$ ,

$T_{0-2,5-9}$ in effective field theory are either competitive with or more stringent than those previously obtained.

References
1	ATLAS Collaboration	Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC	PLB 716 (2012) 1	1207.7214
2	CMS Collaboration	Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC	PLB 716 (2012) 30	CMS-HIG-12-028 1207.7235
3	CMS Collaboration	Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in ${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 and 8 TeV	JHEP 06 (2013) 081	CMS-HIG-12-036 1303.4571
4	ATLAS, CMS Collaboration	Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV	JHEP 08 (2016) 045	1606.02266
5	CMS Collaboration	Combined measurements of Higgs boson couplings in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	EPJC 79 (2019) 421	CMS-HIG-17-031 1809.10733
6	O. J. P. Éboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi	${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow$ jje $^\pm \mu^\pm \nu\nu$ and jje $^\pm\mu^\mp\nu\nu$ at $\cal$ O( $\alpha^6_{\rm em}$ ) and $\cal$ O( $\alpha_{\rm em}^4 \alpha_{\rm s}^2$ ) for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge boson vertex at CERN LHC	PRD 74 (2006) 073005	hep-ph/0606118
7	ATLAS Collaboration	Evidence for electroweak production of two jets in association with a $Z\gamma$ pair in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	PLB 803 (2020) 135341	1910.09503
8	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the cross section for electroweak production of a Z boson, a photon and two jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and constraints on anomalous quartic couplings	JHEP 06 (2020) 076	CMS-SMP-18-007 2002.09902
9	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004	CMS-00-001
10	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
11	J. Alwall et al.	The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations	JHEP 07 (2014) 079	1405.0301
12	T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi	$\text{W}^{+}\text{W}^{-}$ , $\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Z}$ and $\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}$ production in the POWHEG BOX	JHEP 11 (2011) 078	1107.5051
13	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
14	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
15	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
16	T. Sjostrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	CPC 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
17	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
18	O. Mattelaer	On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy	EPJC 76 (2016) 674	1607.00763
19	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
20	P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo	Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune	EPJC 74 (2014) 3024	1404.5630
21	CMS Collaboration	Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements	EPJC 76 (2016) 155	CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815
22	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4--a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
23	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4 developments and applications	IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270
24	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
25	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- ${k_{\mathrm{T}}}$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
26	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
27	CMS Collaboration	Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker	JINST 9 (2014) P10009	CMS-TRK-11-001 1405.6569
28	CMS Collaboration	Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	JINST 10 (2015) P06005	CMS-EGM-13-001 1502.02701
29	CMS Collaboration	Energy calibration and resolution of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter in ${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}$ collision at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 TeV	JINST 8 (2013) P09009	CMS-EGM-11-001 1306.2016
30	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P06015	CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528
31	M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam	Pileup subtraction using jet areas	PLB 659 (2008) 119	0707.1378
32	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the inclusive $\mathrm{W}$ and $\mathrm{Z}$ production cross sections in ${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV with the CMS experiment	JHEP 10 (2011) 132	CMS-EWK-10-005 1107.4789
33	CMS Collaboration	Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	JINST 10 (2015) P08010	CMS-EGM-14-001 1502.02702
34	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in ${\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}}$ collisions at 8 TeV	JINST 12 (2017) P02014	CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663
35	CMS Collaboration	Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data	JINST 15 (2020) P09018	CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503
36	D. Rainwater, R. Szalapski, and D. Zeppenfeld	Probing color singlet exchange in Z+2-jets events at the CERN LHC	PRD 54 (1996) 6680	hep-ph/9605444
37	N. Kidonakis	Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a $W^{-}$ or $H^{-}$	PRD 82 (2010) 054018	1005.4451
38	J. Butterworth et al.	PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II	JPG 43 (2016) 023001	1510.03865
39	CMS Collaboration	CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
40	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
41	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002	CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
42	S. S. Wilks	The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses	Ann. Math. Statist 9 (1938) 60
43	CMS Collaboration	Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV	EPJC 75 (2015) 212	CMS-HIG-14-009 1412.8662
44	E. d. S. Almeida, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia	Unitarity constraints on anomalous quartic couplings	PRD 101 (2020), no. 11, 113003	2004.05174