CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-TOP-18-010
Measurement of the inclusive and differential $\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}} + \gamma$ cross section and EFT interpretation in the single lepton channel at $\sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Abstract: The production cross section of a top quark pair in association with a photon is measured in proton-proton collisions at the center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data set of 137 fb$^{-1}$ was recorded by the CMS experiment during the LHC Run II. The measurement is performed in events with a well isolated, highly energetic lepton (electron or muon), with at least three jets from the hadronization of quarks and one isolated photon. The photon may be emitted from initial state radiation, from the top quarks, as well as from decay products of the top quarks. The analysis makes use of simultaneous likelihood fits in several signal and control regions to distinguish the $\mathrm{t}\bar{\mathrm{t}} + \gamma$ signal process from various backgrounds. The inclusive cross section for a photon with transverse momentum of $\mathrm{p}_\mathrm{T} \geq$ 20 GeV is measured as 800 $\pm$ 46 (syst) $\pm$ 7 (stat) fb, in good agreement with the prediction from the standard model. The measurement is also carried out differentially in several kinematic observables and interpreted in the framework of the standard model effective field theory.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative LO Feynman diagrams for the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \gamma}$ signal process in the single lepton channel where the high energetic photon originates from the top quark (left, middle), or is emitted from a lepton (right). The $\mathrm{t} \gamma $ interaction is indicated by a circle.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative LO Feynman diagrams for the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \gamma}$ signal process in the single lepton channel where the high energetic photon originates from the top quark (left, middle), or is emitted from a lepton (right). The $\mathrm{t} \gamma $ interaction is indicated by a circle.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative LO Feynman diagrams for the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \gamma}$ signal process in the single lepton channel where the high energetic photon originates from the top quark (left, middle), or is emitted from a lepton (right). The $\mathrm{t} \gamma $ interaction is indicated by a circle.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Representative LO Feynman diagrams for the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \gamma}$ signal process in the single lepton channel where the high energetic photon originates from the top quark (left, middle), or is emitted from a lepton (right). The $\mathrm{t} \gamma $ interaction is indicated by a circle.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 2-e:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 2-f:
Distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$, the transverse mass ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ of the W boson candidate, the three-jet invariant mass ${M_3}$ (upper row) and the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$), the angular separation of the lepton and the photon ($\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$), and the angular separation of the leading jet and the photon ($\Delta R(j_1, \gamma)$) (lower row). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $ {N_\text {jet}} =$ 2, $ {N_\text {b jet}} =$ 0 selection for electrons (left) and muons (right). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $ {N_\text {jet}} =$ 2, $ {N_\text {b jet}} =$ 0 selection for electrons (left) and muons (right). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Fit result of the multijet template obtained with loosely isolated leptons and the electroweak background to the measured ${{m_{\mathrm {T}}} (\mathrm{W})}$ distribution with isolated leptons in the $ {N_\text {jet}} =$ 2, $ {N_\text {b jet}} =$ 0 selection for electrons (left) and muons (right). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3, $ {N_\text {b jet}} =$ 0 selection for the e channel (left) and the $\mu$channel (right). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3, $ {N_\text {b jet}} =$ 0 selection for the e channel (left) and the $\mu$channel (right). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Distribution of the invariant mass of the lepton and the photon ($m(\ell,\gamma)$) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3, $ {N_\text {b jet}} =$ 0 selection for the e channel (left) and the $\mu$channel (right). The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Predicted yields and observation in the control regions in the $ {N_\text {jet}} =$ 3 and $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 4 selections for post-fit values of the nuisance parameters. The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The shaded bands show the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Predicted yields and observation in the signal regions in the $ {N_\text {jet}} =$ 3 and $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 4 selections for post-fit values of the nuisance parameters. The lower panels show the ratio of the observation to the prediction. The systematic uncertainties are shown as a shaded band.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Summary of the measured cross sections normalized to the NLO cross section prediction for signal regions binned in the e-channel, $\mu $-channel and the combined single lepton measurement. The light brown band indicates the theory uncertainty in the prediction.

png pdf
Figure 8:
The distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3 selection after background subtraction. The lower panel displays the relative uncertainty, where the inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
The distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3 selection after background subtraction. The lower panel displays the relative uncertainty, where the inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
The distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3 selection after background subtraction. The lower panel displays the relative uncertainty, where the inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 8-c:
The distribution of ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom) in the $ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 3 selection after background subtraction. The lower panel displays the relative uncertainty, where the inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 9:
The unfolded differential cross sections for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom). The lower panel displays the ratio of simulation to the observation. The inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
The unfolded differential cross sections for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom). The lower panel displays the ratio of simulation to the observation. The inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
The unfolded differential cross sections for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom). The lower panel displays the ratio of simulation to the observation. The inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
The unfolded differential cross sections for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom). The lower panel displays the ratio of simulation to the observation. The inner and outer bands show the statistical and total uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 10:
The covariance matrices of the unfolded differential measurement for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
The covariance matrices of the unfolded differential measurement for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
The covariance matrices of the unfolded differential measurement for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 10-c:
The covariance matrices of the unfolded differential measurement for ${p_{T}(\gamma)}$ (left), ${|\eta (\gamma)|}$ (right), and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 11:
Results of one-dimensional scans for the Wilson coefficients ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}}$ (left) and ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}^{I}}$ (right), and for the two-dimensional plane (bottom). The shading quantified by the color scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio with respect to the best-fit value that is designated by the star. The green and orange lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The allowed areas are those between the two green contours and that inside the orange contour. The dot shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
Results of one-dimensional scans for the Wilson coefficients ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}}$ (left) and ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}^{I}}$ (right), and for the two-dimensional plane (bottom). The shading quantified by the color scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio with respect to the best-fit value that is designated by the star. The green and orange lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The allowed areas are those between the two green contours and that inside the orange contour. The dot shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
Results of one-dimensional scans for the Wilson coefficients ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}}$ (left) and ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}^{I}}$ (right), and for the two-dimensional plane (bottom). The shading quantified by the color scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio with respect to the best-fit value that is designated by the star. The green and orange lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The allowed areas are those between the two green contours and that inside the orange contour. The dot shows the SM prediction.

png pdf
Figure 11-c:
Results of one-dimensional scans for the Wilson coefficients ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}}$ (left) and ${c_{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{Z}}^{I}}$ (right), and for the two-dimensional plane (bottom). The shading quantified by the color scale on the right reflects the negative log-likelihood ratio with respect to the best-fit value that is designated by the star. The green and orange lines indicate the 68 and 95% CL contours from the fit, respectively. The allowed areas are those between the two green contours and that inside the orange contour. The dot shows the SM prediction.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Event generator and orders of accuracy for each simulated process.

png pdf
Table 2:
Overview of signal and control regions. For ZG, WG, and misDY the regions with suffixes 3 (4p) have a modified jet multiplicity requirement of $ {N_\text {jet}} =$ 3 ($ {N_\text {jet}} \geq $ 4).

png pdf
Table 3:
Extracted scale factors for the contribution from misidentified electrons for the three data taking periods, and the ${{\mathrm{Z}} \gamma}, {\mathrm{W} \gamma}$ scale factors.

png pdf
Table 4:
Summary of systematic uncertainties. The first column indicates the source of the uncertainty. The second column shows the correlation between the data taking periods, where the check symbol indicates 100% correlation. The third column shows the typical pre-fit uncertainties in the simulated yields of the signal region. The last column gives the corresponding systematic uncertainty in the ${{\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}} \gamma}$ cross section using the fit result.

png pdf
Table 5:
Binning choices in the differential measurements.

png pdf
Table 6:
Summary of the 1D confidence intervals at 68 and 95% CL.
Summary
A measurement of top quark pair production in association with a photon using a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$, collected with the CMS detector at the LHC has been presented. The analysis was performed in the three- and at least four-jet final states. A data driven approach is used to estimate the background in the signal regions. The measured inclusive cross section is $\sigma^{\textrm{fid.}}({\mathrm{t\bar{t}}\gamma} ) = $ 800 $\pm$ 46 (syst) $\pm$ 7 (stat) fb and is in good agreement with the standard model prediction.

Absolute and normalized differential cross sections for the transverse momentum of the ${p_{\mathrm{T}}}(\gamma)$, ${|\eta(\gamma)|}$, and ${\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)}$ are measured. The measurement is also interpreted in terms of Wilson coefficients in the context of SMEFT. The confidence intervals for the Wilson coefficients ${c_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}}} $ and ${c_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}}^{I}} $ are the strongest to date.
References
1 O. Bessidskaia Bylund et al. Probing top quark neutral couplings in the standard model effective field theory at NLO in QCD JHEP 05 (2016) 052 1601.08193
2 CDF Collaboration Evidence for $ t\bar{t}\gamma $ production and measurement of $ \sigma_{t\bar{t}\gamma}/\sigma_{t\bar{t}} $ PRD 48 (2011) 031104 1106.3970
3 ATLAS Collaboration Observation of top-quark pair production in association with a photon and measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\gamma $ production cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV using the ATLAS detector PRD 91 (2015) 072007 1502.00586
4 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the $ t\overline{t}\gamma $ production cross section in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 11 (2017) 086 1706.03046
5 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the semileptonic $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} + \gamma $ production cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8 TeV JHEP 10 (2017) 006 CMS-TOP-14-008
1706.08128
6 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of inclusive and differential fiducial cross-sections of $ t\bar{t}\gamma $ production in leptonic final states at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in ATLAS EPJC 79 (2019) 382 1812.01697
7 ATLAS Collaboration Measurements of inclusive and differential cross-sections of combined $ t\bar{t}\gamma $ and $ tW\gamma $ production in the $ e\mkern-2mu\mu $ channel at 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 09 (2020) 049 2007.06946
8 B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian JHEP 10 (2010) 085 1008.4884
9 D. Barducci et al. Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory (2, 2018) 1802.07237
10 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
11 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
12 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
13 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
14 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
15 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
16 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and G. Ridolfi A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
17 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
18 S. Dulat et al. New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics PRD 93 (2016) 033006 1506.07443
19 M. Aliev et al. HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR CPC 182 (2011) 1034 1007.1327
20 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
21 N. Kidonakis Theoretical results for electroweak-boson and single-top production PoS DIS2015 (2015) 170 1506.04072
22 K. Melnikov and F. Petriello Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through $ O(\alpha^2_S) $ PRD 74 (2006) 114017 hep-ph/0609070
23 S. Catani et al. Vector boson production at hadron colliders: a fully exclusive QCD calculation at NNLO PRL 103 (2009) 082001 0903.2120
24 C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello High precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at NNLO PRD 69 (2004) 094008 hep-ph/0312266
25 S. Dittmaier, A. Huss, and C. Schwinn Mixed QCD-electroweak $ O(\alpha_S\alpha) $ corrections to Drell-Yan processes in the resonance region: pole approximation and non-factorizable corrections NPB 885 (2014) 318 1403.3216
26 J. M. Lindert et al. Precise predictions for $ V+ $ jets dark matter backgrounds EPJC 77 (2017) 829 1705.04664
27 M. V. Garzelli, A. Kardos, C. G. Papadopoulos, and Z. Trocsanyi $ {\rm t\bar{t}W^{\pm}} $ and $ {\rm t\bar{t}Z} $ hadroproduction at NLO accuracy in QCD with parton shower and hadronization effects JHEP 11 (2012) 056 1208.2665
28 S. Frixione et al. Electroweak and QCD corrections to top-pair hadroproduction in association with heavy bosons JHEP 06 (2015) 184 1504.03446
29 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
30 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
31 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
32 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
33 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
34 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders Through $ O(\alpha^4_S) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
35 T. Gehrmann et al. $ W^+W^- $ Production at Hadron Colliders in Next to Next to Leading Order QCD PRL 113 (2014) 212001 1408.5243
36 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
37 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
38 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
39 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
40 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
41 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
42 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
43 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
44 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
45 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
46 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
47 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
48 CMS Collaboration Performance of Photon Reconstruction and Identification with the CMS Detector in Proton-Proton Collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV JINST 10 (2015) P08010 CMS-EGM-14-001
1502.02702
49 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
50 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet User Manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
51 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC submitted to JINST (2020) CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
52 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
53 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
54 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The Catchment Area of Jets JHEP 04 (2008) 005 0802.1188
55 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2016 data taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
56 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
57 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
58 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the Inelastic Proton-Proton Cross Section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC PRL 117 (2016) 182002 1606.02625
59 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
60 CMS Collaboration Energy Calibration and Resolution of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter in $ pp $ Collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV JINST 8 (2013) P09009 CMS-EGM-11-001
1306.2016
61 CMS Collaboration Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) P04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
62 J. Butterworth et al. PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II JPG 43 (2016) 023001 1510.03865
63 R. D. Ball et al. Parton distributions with LHC data NPB 867 (2013) 244 1207.1303
64 A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt Uncertainties on $ \alpha_S $ in global PDF analyses and implications for predicted hadronic cross sections EPJC 64 (2009) 653 0905.3531
65 J. Gao et al. CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD PRD 89 (2014) 033009 1302.6246
66 S. Argyropoulos and T. Sjostrand Effects of color reconnection on $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ final states at the LHC JHEP 11 (2014) 043 1407.6653
67 J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands String formation beyond leading colour JHEP 08 (2015) 003 1505.01681
68 The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group Collaboration Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005
69 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
70 G. Cowan Statistical data analysis Clarendon Press, Oxford
71 S. Schmitt TUnfold, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics JINST 7 (2012) T10003 1205.6201
72 W. Hollik et al. Top dipole form-factors and loop induced CP violation in supersymmetry NPB 551 (1999) 3 hep-ph/9812298
73 K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni Collider Signals of Top Quark Flavor Violation from a Warped Extra Dimension PRD 75 (2007) 015002 hep-ph/0606293
74 A. L. Kagan, G. Perez, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan General Minimal Flavor Violation PRD 80 (2009) 076002 0903.1794
75 T. Ibrahim and P. Nath The Top quark electric dipole moment in an MSSM extension with vector like multiplets PRD 82 (2010) 055001 1007.0432
76 T. Ibrahim and P. Nath The Chromoelectric Dipole Moment of the Top Quark in Models with Vector Like Multiplets PRD 84 (2011) 015003 1104.3851
77 C. Grojean, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Panico Light top partners and precision physics JHEP 10 (2013) 160 1306.4655
78 F. Richard Can LHC observe an anomaly in ttZ production? 1304.3594
79 C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock Effective-field-theory approach to top-quark production and decay PRD 83 (2011) 034006 1008.3869
80 Rontsch, Raoul and Schulze, Markus Probing top-Z dipole moments at the LHC and ILC JHEP 08 (2015) 044 1501.05939
81 M. Schulze and Y. Soreq Pinning down electroweak dipole operators of the top quark EPJC 76 (2016) 466 1603.08911
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN