Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-SMP-20-005 | ||
| W$^{\pm}\gamma$ differential cross sections and effective field theory constraints at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| March 2021 | ||
| Abstract: Differential cross section measurements of W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV are presented. The data set used in this study is collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. Candidate events containing an electron or muon, a photon, and missing transverse momentum are selected. The measurements are compared to standard model predictions computed at next-to-leading order and next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative quantum chromodynamics. Constraints on the presence of heavy new physics affecting the WW$\gamma$ vertex are determined within an effective field theory framework, focusing on the $\mathcal{O}_{3W}$ operator. A simultaneous measurement of the photon transverse momentum and the azimuthal angle of the charged lepton in a special reference frame is performed. This two-dimensional approach yields sensitivity to the interference between the standard model and $\mathcal{O}_{3W}$ that is enhanced by up to a factor of ten compared to using the transverse momentum alone. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
inSPIRE record ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to PRD. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. |
||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Example LO Feynman diagrams for W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production showing initial-state (left) and final-state (center) radiation of the photon, and the WW$\gamma$ TGC (right). |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Example LO Feynman diagram for W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production showing initial-state radiation of the photon. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Example LO Feynman diagram for W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production showing final-state radiation of the photon. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
Example LO Feynman diagram for W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production showing the WW$\gamma$ TGC. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Schematic showing the special coordinate system for W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production, defined by a Lorentz boost to the center-of-mass frame along direction $r$. The $z$ axis is chosen as the $\mathrm{W^{\pm}} $ boson direction in this frame, and $y$ is given by $\hat{r} \times \hat{z}$. The $\mathrm{W^{\pm}} $ boson decay plane is indicated in blue, where the labels $f_{+}$ and $f_{-}$ refer to positive and negative helicity final-state fermions. The angles $\phi $ and $\theta $ are the azimuthal and polar angles of $f_{+}$. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Particle-level distributions of the decay angle $\phi $, comparing the LO 2$\rightarrow $2 process (left) to the LO MLM-merged prediction with up to two additional jets in the matrix element (right). The markers give the SM prediction ($C_{3W} = 0$) and the lines correspond to different values of $C_{3W}$. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Particle-level distributions of the decay angle $\phi $, for the LO 2$\rightarrow $2 process. The markers give the SM prediction ($C_{3W} = 0$) and the lines correspond to different values of $C_{3W}$. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Particle-level distributions of the decay angle $\phi $, for the LO MLM-merged prediction with up to two additional jets in the matrix element. The markers give the SM prediction ($C_{3W} = 0$) and the lines correspond to different values of $C_{3W}$. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Distributions of lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (upper left), photon $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (upper right), $m_{\text {T}}(\ell, {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}})$ (lower left), and $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} $ (lower right), combining the electron and muon channels. The shaded band gives the total statistical and systematic uncertainty on the signal plus background expectation. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Distribution of lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, combining the electron and muon channels. The shaded band gives the total statistical and systematic uncertainty on the signal plus background expectation. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Distribution of photon $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, combining the electron and muon channels. The shaded band gives the total statistical and systematic uncertainty on the signal plus background expectation. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
Distribution of $m_{\text {T}}(\ell, {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}})$, combining the electron and muon channels. The shaded band gives the total statistical and systematic uncertainty on the signal plus background expectation. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
Distribution of $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} $, combining the electron and muon channels. The shaded band gives the total statistical and systematic uncertainty on the signal plus background expectation. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Two-dimensional distribution of $ {\phi ^{\mathrm {gen}}} $ versus $ {\phi ^{\mathrm {true}}} $, where the former is reconstructed using the particle-level lepton and photon momenta and $ {\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}} $. The off-diagonal components correspond to events where the incorrect solution for $\eta ^{\nu}$ is chosen, as described in the text. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
The measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ absolute (left) and fractional (right) differential cross sections (upper), compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions, and corresponding uncertainty decomposition (center) and correlation matrices (lower). The shaded bands in the upper figures give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
The measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ absolute differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
The measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ fractional differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-c:
Uncertainty decomposition of the measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ absolute differential cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-d:
Uncertainty decomposition of the measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ fractional differential cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-e:
Correlation matrix for the measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ absolute fractional cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-f:
Correlation matrix for the measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ fractional differential cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
The measured $\eta ^{\gamma}$ absolute (left) and fractional (right) differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
The measured $\eta ^{\gamma}$ absolute differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
The measured $\eta ^{\gamma}$ fractional differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
The measured $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ absolute (left) and fractional (right) differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-a:
The measured $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ absolute fractional cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-b:
The measured $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ absolute differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
The measured $\Delta \eta (\ell,\gamma)$ absolute (left) and fractional (right) differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
The measured $\Delta \eta (\ell,\gamma)$ absolute fractional cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
The measured $\Delta \eta (\ell,\gamma)$ absolute differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 10:
The measured $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} $ absolute (left) and fractional (right) differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-a:
The measured $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} $ absolute differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-b:
The measured $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} $ fractional differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. The shaded bands give the corresponding missing higher order uncertainties. |
png pdf |
Figure 11:
The measured jet multiplicity cross sections (left) and corresponding correlation matrix (right). |
png pdf |
Figure 11-a:
The measured jet multiplicity cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 11-b:
Correlation matrix for the measured jet multiplicity cross sections. |
png pdf |
Figure 12:
The measured $\Delta \eta (\ell, \gamma)$ absolute (left) and fractional (right) differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Figure 12-a:
The measured $\Delta \eta (\ell, \gamma)$ absolute fractional cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Figure 12-b:
The measured $\Delta \eta (\ell, \gamma)$ absolute differential cross sections, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Figure 13:
Expected and observed $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} \times |\phi _{f}|$ distributions before the maximum likelihood fit is performed. The shaded uncertainty band incorporates all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The red and blue lines show how the total expectation changes when $C_{3W}$ is set to $-0.2 TeV ^{-2}$ or $0.2 TeV ^{-2}$, respectively. Only the SM and interference terms are considered in this example. |
png pdf |
Figure 14:
Scans of the profile likelihood test statistic $q$ as a function of $C_{3W}$, given with and without the pure BSM term by the dashed red and solid black lines, respectively. The full set of $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ and $|\phi _{f}|$ bins, described in the text, are included for these scans. |
png pdf |
Figure 15:
Best-fit values of $C_{3W}$ and corresponding 95% CL confidence intervals as a function of the maximum $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ bin included in the fit (left). Measurement with and without the pure BSM term are given by the black and red lines, respectively. The limits without the pure BSM term given with and without the binning in $|\phi _{f}|$ are also shown (right), with black and blue lines, respectively. The black lines in both figures correspond to the same limits. |
png pdf |
Figure 15-a:
Best-fit values of $C_{3W}$ and corresponding 95% CL confidence intervals as a function of the maximum $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ bin included in the fit. Measurement with and without the pure BSM term are given by the black and red lines, respectively. |
png pdf |
Figure 15-b:
Best-fit values of $C_{3W}$ and corresponding 95% CL confidence intervals as a function of the maximum $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ bin included in the fit. The limits without the pure BSM term given with and without the binning in $|\phi _{f}|$ are shown, with black and blue lines, respectively. |
png pdf |
Figure 16:
Response matrix for the differential $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} \times |\phi _{f}|$ cross section measurement. The entry in each bin gives the probability for an event of a given truth-level fiducial bin to be reconstructed in one of the corresponding reconstruction-level bins. The inner labels give the $|\phi _{f}|$ bin and the outer labels indicate the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ bin. |
png pdf |
Figure 17:
Measured double-differential $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} \times |\phi _{f}|$ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO prediction. The red bands give the uncertainty due to missing high orders in this prediction. |
png pdf |
Figure 18:
Correlation matrix for the measured $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} \times |\phi _{f}|$ cross sections. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Summary of the systematic uncertainties affecting the signal and background predictions. The table notes whether each uncertainty affects the shape of the measured observable or just the normalization, and whether the effect is correlated between data-taking years. The normalization effect on the expected yield is also given. For some shape uncertainties the values vary significantly across the observable distribution. In these cases the typical range and maximum values are given, where the former is the central $68%$ interval considering all bins. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Measured absolute and fractional differential $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ cross sections and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Measured differential $\eta ^{\gamma}$ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Table 4:
Measured differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Table 5:
Measured differential $\Delta \eta (\ell,\gamma)$ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Table 6:
Measured differential $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} $ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX MATRIX predictions. |
png pdf |
Table 7:
Cross section measured in bins of jet multiplicity and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. |
png pdf |
Table 8:
Measured differential $\Delta \eta (\ell,\gamma)$ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO and MATRIX NNLO predictions. Requirements of $ {m_{\mathrm {T}}^{\mathrm {cluster}}} > $ 150 GeV and a jet veto are applied in addition to the baseline selection. |
png pdf |
Table 9:
Fiducial cross section scaling terms as a function of $C_{3W}$ in all $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} \times |\phi _{f}|$ bins. Values are given relative to the SM prediction: $\mu ^{\mathrm {int/BSM}}_{j} = \sigma ^{\mathrm {int/BSM}}_{j} / \sigma ^{\text {SM}}_{j}$. |
png pdf |
Table 10:
Best-fit values of $C_{3W}$ and corresponding 95% CL confidence intervals as a function of the maximum $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} $ bin included in the fit. |
png pdf |
Table 11:
Measured double-differential $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}^{\gamma}} \times |\phi _{f}|$ cross section and comparison to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO prediction. |
| Summary |
| This note has presented an analysis of W$^{\pm}\gamma$ production in $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV proton-proton collisions using 137 fb$^{-1}$ of data recorded by the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. Differential and fiducial cross sections have been measured for several observables and compared to standard model predictions computed at next-to-leading order and next-to-next-to-leading order in perturbative quantum chromodynamics. Constraints on the presence of heavy new physics affecting the WW$\gamma$ vertex have been determined using an effective field theory framework. A novel two-dimensional approach is utilized with the simultaneous measurement of the photon transverse momentum and the azimuthal angle of the charged lepton in a special reference frame. This yields sensitivity to the interference between the standard model and the $\mathcal{O}_{3W}$ operator that is enhanced by up to a factor of ten compared to a measurement using the transverse momentum alone. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | CDF Collaboration | Measurement of $ W \gamma $ and $ Z \gamma $ production in $ {\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{\bar{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96 TeV | PRL 94 (2005) 041803 | hep-ex/0410008 |
| 2 | D0 Collaboration | Measurement of the $ {\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{\bar{p}} \to \mathrm{W} \gamma $ + $ X $ cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96 TeV and $ W W \gamma $ anomalous coupling limits | PRD 71 (2005) 091108 | hep-ex/0503048 |
| 3 | D0 Collaboration | First study of the radiation-amplitude zero in $ W \gamma $ production and limits on anomalous $ W W \gamma $ couplings at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96 TeV | PRL 100 (2008) 241805 | 0803.0030 |
| 4 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the $ W\gamma $ and $ Z\gamma $ inclusive cross sections in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 7 TeV and limits on anomalous triple gauge boson couplings | PRD 89 (2014) 092005 | CMS-EWK-11-009 1308.6832 |
| 5 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of W$ \gamma $ production cross section in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV and constraints on effective field theory coefficients | Submitted to PRLett | CMS-SMP-19-002 2102.02283 |
| 6 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of $ W \gamma $ and $ Z \gamma $ production in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC | PRD 87 (2013) 112003 | 1302.1283 |
| 7 | G. Panico, F. Riva, and A. Wulzer | Diboson interference resurrection | PLB 776 (2018) 473 | 1708.07823 |
| 8 | A. Azatov, J. Elias-Miro, Y. Reyimuaji, and E. Venturini | Novel measurements of anomalous triple gauge couplings for the LHC | JHEP 10 (2017) 027 | 1707.08060 |
| 9 | B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek | Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian | JHEP 10 (2010) 085 | 1008.4884 |
| 10 | A. Azatov, D. Barducci, and E. Venturini | Precision diboson measurements at hadron colliders | JHEP 04 (2019) 075 | 1901.04821 |
| 11 | 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 |
| 12 | 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 |
| 13 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JINST 13 (2018) P06015 | CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528 |
| 14 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | JINST 15 (2020) P10017 | CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165 |
| 15 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 16 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | CMS-00-001 |
| 17 | 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 |
| 18 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 19 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 20 | 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 |
| 21 | 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 |
| 22 | R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli | Single-top t-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO | JHEP 09 (2012) 130 | 1207.5391 |
| 23 | E. Re | Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method | EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 | 1009.2450 |
| 24 | O. Mattelaer | On the maximal use of Monte Carlo samples: re-weighting events at NLO accuracy | EPJC 76 (2016) 674 | 1607.00763 |
| 25 | I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott | The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools | JHEP 12 (2017) 070 | 1709.06492 |
| 26 | I. Brivio | SMEFTsim 3.0 -- a practical guide | 2012.11343 | |
| 27 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 28 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions for the LHC Run II | JHEP 04 (2015) 040 | 1410.8849 |
| 29 | T. Sjostrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | CPC 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 30 | CMS Collaboration | Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements | EPJC 76 (2016) 155 | CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815 |
| 31 | 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 |
| 32 | 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 |
| 33 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4--a simulation toolkit | NIMA 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 34 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 35 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 36 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 37 | CMS Collaboration | Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data | CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 | CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
| 38 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector | JINST 14 (2019) P07004 | CMS-JME-17-001 1903.06078 |
| 39 | D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran | Pileup per particle identification | JHEP 10 (2014) 059 | 1407.6013 |
| 40 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of inclusive $ \mathrm{W} $ and $ \mathrm{Z} $ cross sections in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV | JHEP 01 (2011) 080 | CMS-EWK-10-002 1012.2466 |
| 41 | A. Bodek et al. | Extracting muon momentum scale corrections for hadron collider experiments | EPJC 72 (2012) 2194 | 1208.3710 |
| 42 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 |
| 43 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
| 44 | 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 |
| 45 | R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston | Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples | CPC 77 (1993) 219 | |
| 46 | J. Butterworth et al. | PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II | JPG 43 (2016) 023001 | 1510.03865 |
| 47 | I. W. Stewart and F. J. Tackmann | Theory uncertainties for Higgs and other searches using jet bins | PRD 85 (2012) 034011 | 1107.2117 |
| 48 | The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group | Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 | CMS-NOTE-2011-005 | |
| 49 | ATLAS and CMS Collaborations | Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV | JHEP 08 (2016) 45 | 1606.02266 |
| 50 | W. Verkerke and D. P. Kirkby | The RooFit toolkit for data modeling | in 13$^\textth$ International Conference for Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP03) 2003 CHEP-2003-MOLT007 | physics/0306116 |
| 51 | L. Moneta et al. | The RooStats project | PoS ACAT2010 (2010) 057 | 1009.1003 |
| 52 | G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells | Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics | EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 | 1007.1727 |
| 53 | S. Frixione | Isolated photons in perturbative QCD | PLB 429 (1998) 369 | hep-ph/9801442 |
| 54 | M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and M. Wiesemann | Fully differential NNLO computations with MATRIX | EPJC 78 (2018) 537 | 1711.06631 |
| 55 | M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and D. Rathlev | $ W\gamma $ and $ Z\gamma $ production at the LHC in NNLO QCD | JHEP 07 (2015) 085 | 1504.01330 |
| 56 | S. Catani et al. | Vector boson production at hadron colliders: hard-collinear coefficients at the NNLO | EPJC 72 (2012) 2195 | 1209.0158 |
| 57 | S. Catani and M. Grazzini | An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and its application to Higgs boson production at the LHC | PRL 98 (2007) 222002 | hep-ph/0703012 |
| 58 | F. Cascioli, P. Maierhofer, and S. Pozzorini | Scattering amplitudes with Open Loops | PRL 108 (2012) 111601 | 1111.5206 |
| 59 | A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and L. Hofer | Collier: a fortran-based Complex One-Loop LIbrary in Extended Regularizations | CPC 212 (2017) 220 | 1604.06792 |
| 60 | T. Gehrmann and L. Tancredi | Two-loop QCD helicity amplitudes for $ \mathrm{q}\mathrm{\bar{q}} \to \mathrm{W^{\pm}} \gamma $ and $ \mathrm{q}\mathrm{\bar{q}} \to {\mathrm{Z^0}} \gamma $ | JHEP 02 (2012) 004 | 1112.1531 |
| 61 | K. O. Mikaelian, M. A. Samuel, and D. Sahdev | The magnetic moment of weak bosons produced in $ {\mathrm{p}}{\mathrm{p}} $ and $ {\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{\bar{p}} $ collisions | PRL 43 (1979) 746 | |
| 62 | C. J. Goebel, F. Halzen, and J. P. Leveille | Angular zeros of Brown, Mikaelian, Sahdev, and Samuel and the factorization of tree amplitudes in gauge theories | PRD 23 (1981) 2682 | |
| 63 | S. J. Brodsky and R. W. Brown | Zeros in amplitudes: Gauge theory and radiation interference | PRL 49 (1982) 966 | |
| 64 | R. W. Brown, K. L. Kowalski, and S. J. Brodsky | Classical radiation zeros in gauge theory amplitudes | PRD 28 (1983) 624, . [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 29, 2100--2104 (1984)] | |
| 65 | U. Baur, S. Errede, and G. L. Landsberg | Rapidity correlations in $ W \gamma $ production at hadron colliders | PRD 50 (1994) 1917 | hep-ph/9402282 |
| 66 | R. M. Capdevilla, R. Harnik, and A. Martin | The radiation valley and exotic resonances in $ W\gamma $ production at the LHC | JHEP 03 (2020) 117 | 1912.08234 |
| 67 | R. Contino et al. | On the validity of the effective field theory approach to SM precision tests | JHEP 07 (2016) 144 | 1604.06444 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|