Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-SMP-14-017 | ||
| Measurement of the inclusive jet cross section in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 2.76 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| July 2015 | ||
| Abstract: The double-differential inclusive jet cross section is measured as a function of jet transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) and absolute rapidity ($|y|$) with proton-proton collision data from the CMS experiment at the LHC. The measurement is performed with data collected in 2013 at $\sqrt{s} =$ 2.76 TeV and corresponding to integrated luminosity of 5.43 pb$^{-1}$. Jets are reconstructed within the $p_\mathrm{T}$ range of 74 to 592 GeV and $|y|$ range of 0.0 to 3.0 using the anti-k$_T$ algorithm with $R = 0.7$. The reconstructed jet spectrum is unfolded to the particle level and compared to QCD predictions at next-to-leading order. The theoretical predictions are provided for five different sets of parton distribution functions and are corrected for non-perturbative effects. A theory-normalized cross section ratio is calculated using the measurements at $\sqrt{s} = $ 2.76 TeV and 8 TeV. The predictions of QCD are tested in a previously unprobed kinematic regime at 2.76 TeV center-of-mass energy. A ratio to the measured inclusive jet cross section at $\sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV is calculated. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
Public twiki page ;
CADI line (restricted) ; Figures are also available from the CDS record. These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, EPJC 76 (2016) 265. |
||
| Figures | |
png ; pdf |
Figure 1:
The double-differential jet cross section is plotted in comparison to the theoretical predictions derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties on data are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties due to theoretical and experimental sources are shown as hatched red and shaded gray areas, respectively. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 2-a:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties are indicated with solid red (experimental) and dot-dashed magenta (theoretical) error bands. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 2-b:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties are indicated with solid red (experimental) and dot-dashed magenta (theoretical) error bands. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 2-c:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties are indicated with solid red (experimental) and dot-dashed magenta (theoretical) error bands. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 2-d:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties are indicated with solid red (experimental) and dot-dashed magenta (theoretical) error bands. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 2-e:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties are indicated with solid red (experimental) and dot-dashed magenta (theoretical) error bands. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 2-f:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, while the systematic uncertainties are indicated with solid red (experimental) and dot-dashed magenta (theoretical) error bands. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 3-a:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, and the experimental systematic uncertainty is indicated with the solid black band. Instead of the theoretical error band, the ratios of theoretical predictions derived with other PDFs to the one derived with the CT10 PDF are shown (colored dashed and dotted lines). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 3-b:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, and the experimental systematic uncertainty is indicated with the solid black band. Instead of the theoretical error band, the ratios of theoretical predictions derived with other PDFs to the one derived with the CT10 PDF are shown (colored dashed and dotted lines). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 3-c:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, and the experimental systematic uncertainty is indicated with the solid black band. Instead of the theoretical error band, the ratios of theoretical predictions derived with other PDFs to the one derived with the CT10 PDF are shown (colored dashed and dotted lines). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 3-d:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, and the experimental systematic uncertainty is indicated with the solid black band. Instead of the theoretical error band, the ratios of theoretical predictions derived with other PDFs to the one derived with the CT10 PDF are shown (colored dashed and dotted lines). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 3-e:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, and the experimental systematic uncertainty is indicated with the solid black band. Instead of the theoretical error band, the ratios of theoretical predictions derived with other PDFs to the one derived with the CT10 PDF are shown (colored dashed and dotted lines). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 3-f:
The ratio between the observed cross section and its theoretical prediction derived with the CT10 PDF. The statistical uncertainties are indicated with vertical error bars, and the experimental systematic uncertainty is indicated with the solid black band. Instead of the theoretical error band, the ratios of theoretical predictions derived with other PDFs to the one derived with the CT10 PDF are shown (colored dashed and dotted lines). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 4-a:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins $|y| < $ 0.5 (a,c) and 0.5 $ \leq |y| <$ 1.0 (b,d). The statistical and total experimental uncertainties are indicated with the inner thick and the outer thin vertical error bars, respectively, while the systematic uncertainties due to theoretical sources are shown as hatched yellow area. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 4-b:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins $|y| < $ 0.5 (a,c) and 0.5 $ \leq |y| <$ 1.0 (b,d). The statistical and total experimental uncertainties are indicated with the inner thick and the outer thin vertical error bars, respectively, while the systematic uncertainties due to theoretical sources are shown as hatched yellow area. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 4-c:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins $|y| < $ 0.5 (a,c) and 0.5 $ \leq |y| <$ 1.0 (b,d). The statistical and total experimental uncertainties are indicated with the inner thick and the outer thin vertical error bars, respectively, while the systematic uncertainties due to theoretical sources are shown as hatched yellow area. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 4-d:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins $|y| < $ 0.5 (a,c) and 0.5 $ \leq |y| <$ 1.0 (b,d). The statistical and total experimental uncertainties are indicated with the inner thick and the outer thin vertical error bars, respectively, while the systematic uncertainties due to theoretical sources are shown as hatched yellow area. |
png ; pdf |
Figure 5-a:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 1.0 $ \leq |y| < $ 1.5 (a,c) and 1.5 $\leq |y|<$ 2.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 5-b:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 1.0 $ \leq |y| < $ 1.5 (a,c) and 1.5 $\leq |y|<$ 2.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 5-c:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 1.0 $ \leq |y| < $ 1.5 (a,c) and 1.5 $\leq |y|<$ 2.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 5-d:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 1.0 $ \leq |y| < $ 1.5 (a,c) and 1.5 $\leq |y|<$ 2.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 6-a:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 2.0 $\leq |y| < $ 2.5 (a,c) and 2.5 $\leq |y| < $ 3.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 6-b:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 2.0 $\leq |y| < $ 2.5 (a,c) and 2.5 $\leq |y| < $ 3.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 6-c:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 2.0 $\leq |y| < $ 2.5 (a,c) and 2.5 $\leq |y| < $ 3.0 (b,d). |
png ; pdf |
Figure 6-d:
The ratio of inclusive jet cross sections at $\sqrt {s} =$ 2.76 and 8 TeV (a,b) and its comparison to the theoretical prediction (c,d), calculated with the CT10 PDF for the rapidity bins 2.0 $\leq |y| < $ 2.5 (a,c) and 2.5 $\leq |y| < $ 3.0 (b,d). |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|