Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ; Contact us: CMS Publications Committee

CMS-PAS-TOP-17-002

Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production and associated jets using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration

September 2017

Abstract: Differential and double-differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV are measured as a function of kinematic variables of the top quarks and the top quark-antiquark system. In addition, kinematic properties and multiplicities of jets associated with the production of top quark pairs are measured. This analysis is based on data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016 corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.8 fb$^{-1}$. The measurements are performed in the lepton+jets decay channels with a single muon or electron and jets in the final state. The differential cross sections are presented at particle level, within a phase space close to the experimental acceptance, and at parton level in the full phase space. The results are compared to several standard model predictions that use different methods and approximations for their calculations. The kinematic properties of the top quarks and the top quark-antiquark system are well described apart from a softer transverse momentum of the top quarks, which has already been observed in previous measurements. The kinematic distributions and multiplicities of jets can be modeled by certain combinations of next-to-leading order calculations and parton shower models.

Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, PRD 97 (2018) 112003. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Comparison between the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) at particle and parton level, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : fraction of parton-level top quarks in the same bin at particle level (purity), fraction of particle-level top quarks in the same bin at parton level (stability), ratio of the number of particle- to parton-level top quarks, and fraction of events with a particle-level top quark pair that are not considered as signal events at parton level. Right : bin migrations between particle and parton level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panel. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton level in the full phase space.
png pdf	Figure 1-a: Comparison between the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) at particle and parton level, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : fraction of parton-level top quarks in the same bin at particle level (purity), fraction of particle-level top quarks in the same bin at parton level (stability), ratio of the number of particle- to parton-level top quarks, and fraction of events with a particle-level top quark pair that are not considered as signal events at parton level. Right : bin migrations between particle and parton level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panel. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton level in the full phase space.
png pdf	Figure 1-b: Comparison between the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) at particle and parton level, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : fraction of parton-level top quarks in the same bin at particle level (purity), fraction of particle-level top quarks in the same bin at parton level (stability), ratio of the number of particle- to parton-level top quarks, and fraction of events with a particle-level top quark pair that are not considered as signal events at parton level. Right : bin migrations between particle and parton level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panel. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton level in the full phase space.
png pdf	Figure 2: Top: normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons $M(\mathrm{W})$ and the correctly reconstructed top quarks $M({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$ for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements. The predictions of the other contributions are taken from the simulation. Bottom: normalized distributions of the distance $ {D_{\nu,\text {min}}} $ for correctly and wrongly selected b jets from the leptonically decaying top quarks. The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Top: normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons $M(\mathrm{W})$ and the correctly reconstructed top quarks $M({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$ for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements. The predictions of the other contributions are taken from the simulation. Bottom: normalized distributions of the distance $ {D_{\nu,\text {min}}} $ for correctly and wrongly selected b jets from the leptonically decaying top quarks. The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Top: normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons $M(\mathrm{W})$ and the correctly reconstructed top quarks $M({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$ for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements. The predictions of the other contributions are taken from the simulation. Bottom: normalized distributions of the distance $ {D_{\nu,\text {min}}} $ for correctly and wrongly selected b jets from the leptonically decaying top quarks. The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-c: Top: normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons $M(\mathrm{W})$ and the correctly reconstructed top quarks $M({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$ for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements. The predictions of the other contributions are taken from the simulation. Bottom: normalized distributions of the distance $ {D_{\nu,\text {min}}} $ for correctly and wrongly selected b jets from the leptonically decaying top quarks. The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 2-d: Top: normalized two-dimensional mass distribution of the correctly reconstructed hadronically decaying W bosons $M(\mathrm{W})$ and the correctly reconstructed top quarks $M({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}})$ for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements. The predictions of the other contributions are taken from the simulation. Bottom: normalized distributions of the distance $ {D_{\nu,\text {min}}} $ for correctly and wrongly selected b jets from the leptonically decaying top quarks. The distributions are taken from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ simulation.
png pdf	Figure 3: Reconstruction efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ system as a function of the number of additional jets for the parton- (left) and particle- (right) level measurements. The efficiencies are calculated based on the simulations with POWHEG+PYTHIA8 (P8), POWHEG+HERWIG++ (H++), and MG5_aMC@NLO +PYTHIA8. The efficiencies are shown with statistical uncertainties depending on the simulation.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: Reconstruction efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ system as a function of the number of additional jets for the parton- (left) and particle- (right) level measurements. The efficiencies are calculated based on the simulations with POWHEG+PYTHIA8 (P8), POWHEG+HERWIG++ (H++), and MG5_aMC@NLO +PYTHIA8. The efficiencies are shown with statistical uncertainties depending on the simulation.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: Reconstruction efficiency of the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ system as a function of the number of additional jets for the parton- (left) and particle- (right) level measurements. The efficiencies are calculated based on the simulations with POWHEG+PYTHIA8 (P8), POWHEG+HERWIG++ (H++), and MG5_aMC@NLO +PYTHIA8. The efficiencies are shown with statistical uncertainties depending on the simulation.
png pdf	Figure 4: Distribution of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the expected yields are provided at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Distribution of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the expected yields are provided at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Distribution of the negative log-likelihood for the selected best permutation in the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the sum of the expected yields are provided at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-c: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-d: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-e: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-f: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-g: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 5-h: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of jets as identified by the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ reconstruction algorithm. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 6: Comparisons of the reconstructed $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top) and $ {< y >}$ (bottom) in data and simulations for the parton (left) and the particle (right) level. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: Comparisons of the reconstructed $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top) and $ {< y >}$ (bottom) in data and simulations for the parton (left) and the particle (right) level. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: Comparisons of the reconstructed $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top) and $ {< y >}$ (bottom) in data and simulations for the parton (left) and the particle (right) level. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 6-c: Comparisons of the reconstructed $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top) and $ {< y >}$ (bottom) in data and simulations for the parton (left) and the particle (right) level. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 6-d: Comparisons of the reconstructed $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top) and $ {< y >}$ (bottom) in data and simulations for the parton (left) and the particle (right) level. The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-d: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-e: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 7-f: Comparisons of the reconstructed distributions of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $) (top) and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ (middle) for the parton- (left) and the particle- (right) level measurements in data and simulations. Bottom: distributions of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ (left) and the number of additional jets (right). The simulation of POWHEG+PYTHIA8 is used to describe the $ {\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} $ production. The contribution of multijet, DY, and W boson events is extracted from the data (cf. Section 7). Experimental (cf. Section 9) and statistical uncertainties (hatched area) are shown for the total simulated yield, which is normalized according to the measured integrated luminosity of the data. The data points are shown with statistical uncertainties. The ratios of data to the expected yields are given at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 8: Migration studies of the parton (top) and particle (bottom) level measurements of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$), extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and parton (particle) level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panels. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton (particle) level in the finally measured phase space.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Migration studies of the parton (top) and particle (bottom) level measurements of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$), extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and parton (particle) level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panels. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton (particle) level in the finally measured phase space.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Migration studies of the parton (top) and particle (bottom) level measurements of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$), extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and parton (particle) level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panels. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton (particle) level in the finally measured phase space.
png pdf	Figure 8-c: Migration studies of the parton (top) and particle (bottom) level measurements of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$), extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and parton (particle) level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panels. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton (particle) level in the finally measured phase space.
png pdf	Figure 8-d: Migration studies of the parton (top) and particle (bottom) level measurements of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$), extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and parton (particle) level. The $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ range of the bins can be taken from the left panels. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at parton (particle) level in the finally measured phase space.
png pdf	Figure 9: Migration matrices of the particle level measurement of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ spectra, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and particle level. On the axes the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ bins for each jet are shown. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at particle level.
png pdf	Figure 9-a: Migration matrices of the particle level measurement of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ spectra, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and particle level. On the axes the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ bins for each jet are shown. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at particle level.
png pdf	Figure 9-b: Migration matrices of the particle level measurement of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ spectra, extracted from the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 simulation. Left : purity, stability, and efficiency per bin. Right : bin migrations between detector and particle level. On the axes the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ bins for each jet are shown. Each column is normalized to the number of events per column at particle level.
png pdf	Figure 10: Relative uncertainties due to the individual sources in the measurement of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) at parton level (left) and particle level (right). Sources of a maximum uncertainty below 0.5% are summarized in the category "Others''. The combination of the individual sources of jet energy uncertainty is labeled "Jet energy''. The combined uncertainty considers all systematic uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 10-a: Relative uncertainties due to the individual sources in the measurement of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) at parton level (left) and particle level (right). Sources of a maximum uncertainty below 0.5% are summarized in the category "Others''. The combination of the individual sources of jet energy uncertainty is labeled "Jet energy''. The combined uncertainty considers all systematic uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 10-b: Relative uncertainties due to the individual sources in the measurement of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) at parton level (left) and particle level (right). Sources of a maximum uncertainty below 0.5% are summarized in the category "Others''. The combination of the individual sources of jet energy uncertainty is labeled "Jet energy''. The combined uncertainty considers all systematic uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 11: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 11-a: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 11-b: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 11-c: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 11-d: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 11-e: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 11-f: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of the top quark with the higher and lower $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (top), $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) and $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\ell}$) (middle), and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ and $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\ell}) >}$ (bottom). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 12: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($\mathrm{t}$) (top) and $ {< y(\mathrm{t}) >}$ (bottom) measured separately for the hadronically (left) and leptonically (right) decaying particle-level top quarks. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 12-a: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($\mathrm{t}$) (top) and $ {< y(\mathrm{t}) >}$ (bottom) measured separately for the hadronically (left) and leptonically (right) decaying particle-level top quarks. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 12-b: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($\mathrm{t}$) (top) and $ {< y(\mathrm{t}) >}$ (bottom) measured separately for the hadronically (left) and leptonically (right) decaying particle-level top quarks. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 12-c: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($\mathrm{t}$) (top) and $ {< y(\mathrm{t}) >}$ (bottom) measured separately for the hadronically (left) and leptonically (right) decaying particle-level top quarks. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 12-d: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ ($\mathrm{t}$) (top) and $ {< y(\mathrm{t}) >}$ (bottom) measured separately for the hadronically (left) and leptonically (right) decaying particle-level top quarks. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 13: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 13-a: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 13-b: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 13-c: Differential cross sections at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 14: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 14-a: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 14-b: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 14-c: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$), $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$, and $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the various predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-a: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-b: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-c: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 15-d: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-a: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-b: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-c: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 16-d: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}) >}$ v.s. $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$). The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-a: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-b: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-c: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 17-d: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-a: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-b: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-c: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 18-d: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ v.s. $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-a: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-b: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-c: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 19-d: Double-differential cross section at parton level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-a: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-b: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-c: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 20-d: Double-differential cross section at particle level as a function of $ {< y({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}) >}$ v.s. $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-a: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-b: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-c: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 21-d: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} _\mathrm {h}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-a: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-b: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-c: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 22-d: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $M({\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}})$ in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-a: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-b: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-c: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 23-d: Differential cross sections at particle level as a function of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$) in bins of the number of additional jets. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-a: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-b: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-c: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-d: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-e: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-f: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-g: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 24-h: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25: Top: jet multiplicity. Middle, Bottom: jet multiplicities for various thresholds of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-a: Top: jet multiplicity. Middle, Bottom: jet multiplicities for various thresholds of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-b: Top: jet multiplicity. Middle, Bottom: jet multiplicities for various thresholds of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-c: Top: jet multiplicity. Middle, Bottom: jet multiplicities for various thresholds of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-d: Top: jet multiplicity. Middle, Bottom: jet multiplicities for various thresholds of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 25-e: Top: jet multiplicity. Middle, Bottom: jet multiplicities for various thresholds of the jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26: Distributions of $f_1( {p_{\mathrm {T}}} )$ and $f_2( {p_{\mathrm {T}}} )$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The measurements are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-a: Distributions of $f_1( {p_{\mathrm {T}}} )$ and $f_2( {p_{\mathrm {T}}} )$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The measurements are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 26-b: Distributions of $f_1( {p_{\mathrm {T}}} )$ and $f_2( {p_{\mathrm {T}}} )$. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The measurements are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-a: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-b: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-c: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-d: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-e: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-f: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-g: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 27-h: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ \eta $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-a: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-b: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-c: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-d: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-e: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-f: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-g: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 28-h: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of jet $ {\Delta R_{\mathrm {j}_\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-a: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-b: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-c: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-d: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-e: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-f: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-g: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.
png pdf	Figure 29-h: Differential cross section at particle level as a function of $n{\Delta R_{\mathrm{t}}} $. The data are shown as points with light (dark) error bands indicating the statistical (statistical and systematic) uncertainties. The cross sections are compared to the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations MG5_aMC@NLO (MG5)+PYTHIA8 FxFx and {sherpa}. The ratios of the predictions to the measured cross sections are shown at the bottom of each panel.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Comparison between the measured distributions at parton level and the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++), the multiparton simulation MG5_aMC@NLO FxFx, and the NNLO QCD+NLO EW calculations. The compatibility with the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 prediction is also calculated under consideration of its theoretical uncertainties (with unc.), while those are not taken into account for the other comparisons. The results of the $\chi ^2$ tests are listed together with the numbers of degrees of freedom (dof) and the corresponding p-values.
png pdf	Table 2: Comparison between the measured distributions at particle level and the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations of MG5_aMC@NLO FxFx and {sherpa}. The compatibilities with the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 and the {sherpa} predictions are also calculated under consideration of their theoretical uncertainties (with unc.), while those are not taken into account for the other comparisons. The results of the $\chi ^2$ tests are listed together with the numbers of degrees of freedom (dof) and the corresponding p-values.
png pdf	Table 3: Comparison between the measurements involving multiplicities and kinematic properties of jets and the predictions of POWHEG combined with PYTHIA8 (P8) or HERWIG++ (H++) and the multiparton simulations of MG5_aMC@NLO FxFx and {sherpa}. The compatibilities with the POWHEG+PYTHIA8 and the {sherpa} predictions are also calculated under consideration of their theoretical uncertainties (with unc.), while those are not taken into account for the other comparisons. The results of the $\chi ^2$ tests are listed together with the numbers of degrees of freedom (dof) and the corresponding p-values.

Summary

Measurements of the differential and double-differential cross sections for $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production in pp collisions at 13 TeV have been presented. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.8 fb$^{-1}$ recorded by the CMS experiment. The $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production cross section is measured in the $\ell$+jets channels at particle and parton level channel as a function of transverse momentum $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $ and rapidity $| {y} |$ of the top quarks; $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $, $| {y} | $, and invariant mass of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ system. In addition, at particle level detailed studies of multiplicities and kinematic properties of the jets in $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ events have been performed. The dominant sources of uncertainty are the jet energy scale uncertainties on the experimental side and parton shower modeling on the theoretical side. The results are compared to several standard model predictions that use different methods and approximations for their calculations. The kinematic properties of the top quarks and the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ system are well described apart from a softer measured $ {p_{\mathrm{T}}} $ of the top quarks, which has already been observed in previous measurements and can partially be explained by calculations including NNLO QCD and NLO EW corrections. The kinematic distributions and multiplicities of the additional jets are reasonably modeled by POWHEG+PYTHIA. However, the POWHEG descriptions of additional jets rely on phenomenological models of parton showering and hadronization with tuned parameters. With the selected settings the SHERPA predictions show larger discrepancies from the data, but they strongly depend on the choice of scales. The multiparton simulation of MG5_aMC@NLO+PYTHIAA FxFx results in the best agreement with the measurements.

References
1	CMS Collaboration	Cms luminosity measurement for the 2016 data taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
2	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in pp colisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV	EPJC 73 (2013) 2339	CMS-TOP-11-013 1211.2220
3	ATLAS Collaboration	Differential top-antitop cross-section measurements as a function of observables constructed from final-state particles using pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV in the ATLAS detector	JHEP 06 (2015) 100	1502.05923
4	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV	EPJC 75 (2015) 542	CMS-TOP-12-028 1505.04480
5	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the lepton+jets channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector	EPJC 76 (2016) 538	1511.04716
6	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential cross-section of highly boosted top quarks as a function of their transverse momentum in $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector	PRD 93 (2016) 032009	1510.03818
7	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross section in the all-jets final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV	EPJC 76 (2016) 128	CMS-TOP-14-018 1509.06076
8	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the integrated and differential $ \mathrm{t \bar{t}} $ production cross sections for high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ top quarks in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV	PRD 94 (2016) 072002	CMS-TOP-14-012 1605.00116
9	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential cross sections for top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV	PRD 94 (2016) 052006	CMS-TOP-12-042 1607.00837
10	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of $ \mathrm {t}\overline{\mathrm {t}} $ production with additional jet activity, including b quark jets, in the dilepton decay channel using pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV	EPJC 76 (2016) 379	CMS-TOP-12-041 1510.03072
11	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of top quark pair differential cross-sections in the dilepton channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV with ATLAS	PRD 94 (2016) 092003	1607.07281
12	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of jet activity in top quark events using the $ e\mu $ final state with two b-tagged jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 09 (2016) 074	1606.09490
13	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurement of jet activity produced in top-quark events with an electron, a muon and two $ b $-tagged jets in the final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector	EPJC 77 (2017) 220	1610.09978
14	ATLAS Collaboration	Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the $ e\mu $ channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector	EPJC 77 (2017) 292	1612.05220
15	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV	PRD 95 (2017) 092001	CMS-TOP-16-008 1610.04191
16	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
17	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
18	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
19	J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason, and E. Re	Top-pair production and decay at NLO matched with parton showers	JHEP 04 (2015) 114	1412.1828
20	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
21	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands	PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual	JHEP 05 (2006) 026	hep-ph/0603175
22	T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands	A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1	CPC 178 (2008) 852	0710.3820
23	P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo	Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune	EPJC 74 (2014) 3024	1404.5630
24	R. Frederix and S. Frixione	Merging meets matching in MC@NLO	JHEP 12 (2012) 061	1209.6215
25	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
26	M. Czakon and A. Mitov	Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders	CPC 185 (2014) 2930	1112.5675
27	M. Bahr et al.	Herwig++ physics and manual	EPJC 58 (2008) 639	0803.0883
28	M. H. Seymour and A. Siodmok	Constraining MPI models using $ \sigma_{eff} $ and recent Tevatron and LHC Underlying Event data	JHEP 10 (2013) 113	1307.5015
29	E. Re	Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method	EPJC 71 (2011) 1547	1009.2450
30	Y. Li and F. Petriello	Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ	PRD 86 (2012) 094034	1208.5967
31	P. Kant et al.	HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions	CPC 191 (2015) 74	1406.4403
32	N. Kidonakis	NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production	Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714	1210.7813
33	J. Allison et al.	Geant4 developments and applications	IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270
34	CMS Collaboration	Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level	CDS
35	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti-$ k_\mathrm{t} $ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
36	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
37	CMS Collaboration	Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV	JINST 7 (2012) P10002	CMS-MUO-10-004 1206.4071
38	M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam	Pileup subtraction using jet areas	PLB 659 (2008) 119	0707.1378
39	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
40	CMS Collaboration	Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV	JINST 12 (2017) P02014	CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663
41	CMS Collaboration	Identification of b quark jets at the CMS Experiment in the LHC Run 2	CMS-PAS-BTV-15-001	CMS-PAS-BTV-15-001
42	B. A. Betchart, R. Demina, and A. Harel	Analytic solutions for neutrino momenta in decay of top quarks	NIMA 736 (2014) 169	1305.1878
43	G. D'Agostini	A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem	NIMA 362 (1995) 487
44	CMS Collaboration	Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 and 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021	CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
45	Particle Data Group Collaboration	Review of Particle Physics	CPC 38 (2014) 090001
46	M. Czakon et al.	Top-pair production at the LHC through NNLO QCD and NLO EW		1705.04105
47	A. Manohar, P. Nason, G. P. Salam, and G. Zanderighi	How bright is the proton? A precise determination of the photon parton distribution function	PRL 117 (2016), no. 24, 242002	1607.04266
48	T. Gleisberg et al.	Event generation with SHERPA 1.1	JHEP 02 (2009) 007	0811.4622
49	F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini	Scattering amplitudes with open loops	PRL 108 (Mar, 2012) 111601
50	S. Schumann and F. Krauss	A Parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation	JHEP 03 (2008) 038	0709.1027

Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN

© Copyright CERN 2015 for the benefit of the CMS Collaboration