CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-TOP-17-019
Search for standard model production of four top quarks with the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
Abstract: A search for the standard model production of four top quarks ($\mathrm{pp \rightarrow t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$) is reported using events with single-lepton ($\mathrm{e}$, $\mu$) + jets and opposite-sign dilepton ($\mu^+\mu^-$, $\mu^\pm \mathrm{e}^\mp$, or $\mathrm{e^+e^-}$) + jets signatures. The events are collected in proton-proton collisions recorded by the CMS detector at the LHC at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in a sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.8 fb$^{-1}$. A multivariate analysis using global event and jet properties based on boosted decision trees is used to discriminate $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ from $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$ production. No significant deviation is observed from the predicted background. An upper limit is set on the cross section for $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production in the standard model of 48 fb at 95$%$ confidence level. When combined with the previous measurement of $\sigma_\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ by the CMS experiment from an analysis of other final states, the observed signal significance is 1.4 standard deviations and the combined cross section measurement is $\sigma_\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}} = $ 13$^{+11}_{-9}$ fb.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative diagrams for $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production at the lowest order in the SM.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Control distributions in the combined single-lepton channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total systematic and statistical uncertainty on the simulations added in quadrature.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {{{\mu ^+}} {{\mu ^-}}} $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {{{\mu ^+}} {{\mu ^-}}} $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {{{\mu ^+}} {{\mu ^-}}} $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 6:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {\mu} ^\pm {\mathrm {e}}^\mp $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {\mu} ^\pm {\mathrm {e}}^\mp $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {\mu} ^\pm {\mathrm {e}}^\mp $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 7:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {{\mathrm {e}^+} {\mathrm {e}^-}} $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {{\mathrm {e}^+} {\mathrm {e}^-}} $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Control distributions of ${N_{\text {j}}}$ and ${T_{\text {trijet1}}}$ in the combined OS dilepton $ {{\mathrm {e}^+} {\mathrm {e}^-}} $ channel. In the upper panel, the data are shown as dots with error bars representing statistical uncertainties, MC simulations are shown as a histogram. In the lower panel a relative difference with respect to MC prediction is also shown. The shaded band represents the total uncertainty on the main background

png pdf
Figure 8:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single-muon channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 7, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3,$ \geq$ 4. Non-equidistant partitioning of the domain of the MVA discriminant was chosen to achieve approximately uniform distribution of the ${{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}}$ background. Dots represent data. Vertical error bars show the statistical uncertainties in the data. The post-fit background predictions are shown as shaded histograms. Open boxes demonstrate the size of the pre-fit uncertainty on the total background and are centered around the pre-fit expectation value of the prediction. The hatched area shows the size of the post-fit uncertainty on the background prediction. Signal histogram template is shown as a solid line. The lower panel shows the relative difference of the observed number of events over the post-fit background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single-muon (a) and single-electron (b) channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 8, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3,$\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single-muon (a) and single-electron (b) channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 8, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3,$\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single-muon (a) and single-electron (b) channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 8, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3,$\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single (a) muon, (b) electron channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 9, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3, $\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single (a) muon, (b) electron channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 9, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3, $\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single (a) muon, (b) electron channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} =$ 9, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3, $\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single (a) muon, (b) electron channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} \geq $ 10, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3, $\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single (a) muon, (b) electron channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} \geq $ 10, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3, $\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ distribution in the single (a) muon, (b) electron channel for events satisfying baseline single-lepton selection and $ {N_{\text {j}}} \geq $ 10, ${N_{\text {tags}}^{\text {m}}} =$ 2, 3, $\geq$ 4. Other details as in Fig. 8.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {dil}}}$ distributions in the $ {{{\mu ^+}} {{\mu ^-}}} $ channel for events satisfying baseline opposite-sign dilepton selection. Dots represent data. Vertical error bars show the statistical uncertainties in the data. The post-fit background predictions are shown as shaded histograms. Open boxes demonstrate the size of the pre-fit uncertainty on the total background and are centered around the pre-fit expectation value of the prediction. The hatched area shows the size of the post-fit uncertainty on the background prediction. Signal histogram template is shown as a solid line. The lower panel shows the relative difference of the observed number of events over the post-fit background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {dil}}}$ distributions in the (a) $ {{\mathrm {e}^+} {\mathrm {e}^-}} $, (b) $ {\mu} ^\pm {\mathrm {e}}^\mp $ channel for events satisfying baseline opposite-sign dilepton selection. Other details as in Fig. 12.

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {dil}}}$ distributions in the (a) $ {{\mathrm {e}^+} {\mathrm {e}^-}} $, (b) $ {\mu} ^\pm {\mathrm {e}}^\mp $ channel for events satisfying baseline opposite-sign dilepton selection. Other details as in Fig. 12.

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
Post-fit ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {dil}}}$ distributions in the (a) $ {{\mathrm {e}^+} {\mathrm {e}^-}} $, (b) $ {\mu} ^\pm {\mathrm {e}}^\mp $ channel for events satisfying baseline opposite-sign dilepton selection. Other details as in Fig. 12.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Uncertainties that affect the normalization of the data sets and shapes of the ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {lj}}}$ and ${D_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {dil}}}$ discriminants

png pdf
Table 2:
Maximum-likelihood signal-strength and cross section estimates, as well as the expected and observed significance of SM $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production. The results for the two analyses from this note are shown separately and combined. The values quoted for the uncertainties on the signal-strengths and cross sections are the one standard deviation values and include all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table 3:
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on SM $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production as a multiple of ${\sigma _{\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}}^{\text {SM}}}$ and in fb. The results for the two analyses from this note are shown separately and combined. The values quoted for the uncertainties on the expected limits are the one standard deviation values and include all statistical and systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table 4:
Linear parametrization coefficients, $\sigma _{k}^{\left (1\right)}$, of Eq. 6. The coefficients $\sigma _{k}^{\left (1\right)}$ are in units (fb TeV$ ^{2}$).

png pdf
Table 5:
Quadratic parametrization coefficients, $\sigma _{j,k}^{\left (2\right)}$, of Eq. 6. The coefficients $\sigma _{j,k}^{\left (2\right)}$ are in units (fb TeV$ ^{4}$).

png pdf
Table 6:
Expected and observed 95% CL intervals for selected coupling parameters. The intervals are extracted from upper limit on the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production cross section in the EFT model, where only one selected operator has a non-vanishing contribution.

png pdf
Table 7:
Expected and observed 95% CL intervals for selected coupling parameters when contribution of other operators is marginalized.
Summary
A search for the standard model (SM) $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production has been performed in final states with one or two oppositely charged electrons or muons. The observed yields attributed to $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ production are consistent with the SM predictions and a measured value for the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ cross section of 0$^{\,+\,{20}}$ fb has been obtained with an observed significance of 0.0 standard deviations. Combining this result with a previous same-sign dilepton and multilepton search [25] the resulting cross section is 13$^{+{11}}_{-{9}}$ fb with an observed significance of 1.4 standard deviations. The data were analysed in the effective field theory framework. The limits on dimension-6 four-fermion operators coupling to third generation quarks were obtained. These results constitute one of the most stringent constraints on the four top quarks production to date and can be used for phenomenological reinterpretation of a wide range of new physics models.
References
1 P. Ramond Dual theory for free fermions PRD 3 (1971) 2415
2 Y. A. Gol'fand and E. P. Likhtman Extension of the algebra of Poincar$ \'e $ group generators and violation of P invariance JEPTL 13 (1971)323
3 A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz Factorizable dual model of pions NPB 31 (1971) 86
4 D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov Possible universal neutrino interaction JEPTL 16 (1972)438
5 J. Wess and B. Zumino A lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations PLB 49 (1974) 52
6 J. Wess and B. Zumino Supergauge transformations in four-dimensions NPB 70 (1974) 39
7 P. Fayet Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino NPB 90 (1975) 104
8 H. P. Nilles Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics PR 110 (1984) 1
9 S. P. Martin A supersymmetry primer in Perspectives on Supersymmetry II, G. L. Kane, ed., p. 1 World Scientific, 2010 Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys., vol. 21
10 G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry PLB 76 (1978) 575
11 M. Toharia and J. D. Wells Gluino decays with heavier scalar superpartners JHEP 02 (2006) 015 hep-ph/0503175
12 S. Calvet, B. Fuks, P. Gris, and L. Valery Searching for sgluons in multitop events at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV JHEP 04 (2013) 043 1212.3360
13 G. Cacciapaglia et al. Composite scalars at the LHC: the Higgs, the Sextet and the Octet JHEP 11 (2015) 201 1507.02283
14 K. Kumar, T. M. P. Tait, and R. Vega-Morales Manifestations of top compositeness at colliders JHEP 05 (2009) 022 0901.3808
15 G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and J. Llodra-Perez A Dark Matter candidate from Lorentz Invariance in 6D JHEP 03 (2010) 083 0907.4993
16 O. Ducu, L. Heurtier, and J. Maurer LHC signatures of a $ \mathrm{Z}' $ mediator between dark matter and the SU(3) sector JHEP 03 (2016) 006 1509.05615
17 C. Degrande et al. Non-resonant New Physics in Top Pair Production at Hadron Colliders JHEP 03 (2011) 125 1010.6304
18 G. Bevilacqua and M. Worek Constraining BSM physics at the LHC: Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD JHEP 07 (2012) 111 1206.3064
19 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
20 R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro Large NLO corrections in $ t\bar{t}W^{\pm} $ and $ t\bar{t}t\bar{t} $ hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions JHEP 02 (2018) 031 1711.02116
21 CMS Collaboration Search for Standard Model Production of Four Top Quarks in the Lepton + Jets Channel in pp Collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV JHEP 11 (2014) 154 CMS-TOP-13-012
1409.7339
22 ATLAS Collaboration Search for supersymmetry at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV in final states with jets and two same-sign leptons or three leptons with the ATLAS detector JHEP 06 (2014) 035 1404.2500
23 CMS Collaboration Search for standard model production of four top quarks in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 772 (2017) 336 CMS-TOP-16-016
1702.06164
24 ATLAS Collaboration Search for four-top-quark production in the single-lepton and opposite-sign dilepton final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector Submitted to PRD 1811.02305
25 CMS Collaboration Search for standard model production of four top quarks with same-sign and multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 78 (2017) 140 CMS-TOP-17-009
1710.10614
26 CMS Collaboration Search for physics beyond the standard model in events with two leptons of same sign, missing transverse momentum, and jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC77 (2017) 578 CMS-SUS-16-035
1704.07323
27 ATLAS Collaboration Search for pair production of up-type vector-like quarks and for four-top-quark events in final states with multiple $ b $-jets with the ATLAS detector JHEP 07 (2018) 089 1803.09678
28 M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions JHEP 01 (2007) 013 hep-ph/0611129
29 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
30 T. Sjostrand et al. An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
31 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
32 CMS Collaboration Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in Pythia 8 in the modelling of $ t\bar{t} $ at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 and 13 TeV CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
33 S. Frixione et al. A Positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
34 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
35 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
36 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
37 S. Alioli, S.-O. Moch, and P. Uwer Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering JHEP 01 (2012) 137 1110.5251
38 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
39 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
40 M. Cacciari et al. Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation PLB 710 (2012) 612 1111.5869
41 P. Barnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov Percent Level Precision Physics at the Tevatron: First Genuine NNLO QCD Corrections to $ q \bar{q} \to t \bar{t} + X $ PRL 109 (2012) 132001 1204.5201
42 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels JHEP 12 (2012) 054 1207.0236
43 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
44 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through $ {\cal{O}}(\alpha_S^4) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
45 CMS Collaboration Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\overline{t}} $ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using events containing two leptons Submitted to JHEP CMS-TOP-17-014
1811.06625
46 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential cross sections for the production of top quark pairs and of additional jets in lepton+jets events from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PRD 97 (2018) 112003 CMS-TOP-17-002
1803.08856
47 M. Czakon, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov High-precision differential predictions for top-quark pairs at the LHC PRL 116 (2016) 082003 1511.00549
48 N. Kidonakis NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714 1210.7813
49 M. Aliev et al. HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR CPC 182 (2011) 1034 1007.1327
50 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
51 J. Alwall et al. Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions EPJC 53 (2008) 473 0706.2569
52 LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 4. Deciphering the Nature of the Higgs Sector 1610.07922
53 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4---a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
54 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
55 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
56 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018), no. 06, P06015 CMS-MUO-16-001
1804.04528
57 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
58 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
59 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
60 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector CMS-PAS-JME-17-001 CMS-PAS-JME-17-001
61 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P05011 CMS-BTV-16-002
1712.07158
62 L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone Classification and Regression Trees Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1984ISBN 9780412048418
63 J. H. Friedman Recent Advances in Predictive (Machine) Learning J. Classif. 23 (2006) 175
64 Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire A Decision-Theoretic Generalization of On-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55 (1997), no. 1, 119
65 H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt TMVA, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT in XIth International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT2007) 2007 physics/0703039
66 F. Pedregosa et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python Journal of Machine Learning Research 12 (2011) 2825 1201.0490
67 J. D. Bjorken and S. J. Brodsky Statistical model for electron-positron annihilation into hadrons PRD 1 (1970) 1416
68 CMS Collaboration CMS Luminosity Measurements for the 2016 Data Taking Period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
69 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2018) 161 CMS-FSQ-15-005
1802.02613
70 CMS Collaboration Measurements of $ t\bar{t} $ cross sections in association with b jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 776 (2018) 355 CMS-TOP-16-010
1705.10141
71 L. Moneta et al. The RooStats Project in 13th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT2010) 2010 1009.1003
72 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the $ CL_{s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
73 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
74 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC. 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
75 The ATLAS and CMS Collaborations and the LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005
76 W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation NPB268 (1986) 621
77 B. Grzadkowski et al. Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian JHEP 10 (2010) 085 1008.4884
78 N. P. Hartland et al. A Monte Carlo global analysis of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory: the top quark sector 1901.05965
79 S. Weinberg Baryon and lepton nonconserving processes PRL 43 (1979) 1566
80 J. Aguilar-Saavedra et al. Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory 1802.07237
81 A. Alloul et al. FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology CPC 185 (2014) 2250 1310.1921
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN