CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-14-022 ; CERN-PH-EP/2015-234
Measurement of the top quark mass using proton-proton data at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 and 8 TeV
Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 072004
Abstract: A new set of measurements of the top quark mass are presented, based on the proton-proton data recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV corresponding to a luminosity of 19.7 fb$^{-1}$. The top quark mass is measured using the lepton+jets, all-jets and dilepton decay channels, giving values of 172.35 $\pm$ 0.16 (stat) $\pm$ 0.48 (syst) GeV, 172.32 $\pm$ 0.25 (stat) $\pm$ 0.59 (syst) GeV, and 172.82 $\pm$ 0.19 (stat) $\pm$ 1.22 (syst) GeV, respectively. When combined with the published CMS results at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV, they provide a top quark mass measurement of 172.44 $\pm$ 0.13 (stat) $\pm$ 0.47 (syst) GeV. The top quark mass is also studied as a function of the event kinematical properties in the lepton+jets decay channel. No indications of a kinematic bias are observed and the collision data are consistent with a range of predictions from current theoretical models of $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Distributions for the lepton+jets channel of (top left) lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, (top right) missing transverse energy, (bottom left) leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, (bottom right) second-leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Distribution for the lepton+jets channel of lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Distribution for the lepton+jets channel of missing transverse energy for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Distribution for the lepton+jets channel of leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
Distribution for the lepton+jets channel of second-leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distributions for the dilepton channel: (top left) leading lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, (top right) second-leading lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, (bottom left) leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, (bottom right) second-leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Dilepton channel: leading lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Dilepton channel: second-leading lepton $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Dilepton channel: leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Dilepton channel: second-leading jet $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ for data and simulation, summed over all channels and normalized by luminosity. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Reconstructed masses of (top left) the W bosons decaying to $ {\mathrm {q}} {\overline {\mathrm {q}}} $ pairs and (top right) the corresponding top quarks, prior to the kinematic fitting to the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ hypothesis. Panels (bottom left) and (bottom right) show, respectively, the reconstructed W boson masses and the fitted top quark masses after the goodness-of-fit selection and the weighting by $P_{\mathrm {gof} }$. The total number of permutations found in simulation is normalized to be the same as the total number of permutations observed in data. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shown the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Reconstructed mass of the W bosons decaying to $ {\mathrm {q}} {\overline {\mathrm {q}}} $ pairs, prior to the kinematic fitting to the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ hypothesis. The total number of permutations found in simulation is normalized to be the same as the total number of permutations observed in data. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of the panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Reconstructed mass of the top quarks corresponding to the W bosons decaying to $ {\mathrm {q}} {\overline {\mathrm {q}}} $ pairs, prior to the kinematic fitting to the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ hypothesis. The total number of permutations found in simulation is normalized to be the same as the total number of permutations observed in data. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of the panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Reconstructed W boson masses after the goodness-of-fit selection and the weighting by $P_{\mathrm {gof} }$. The total number of permutations found in simulation is normalized to be the same as the total number of permutations observed in data. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of the panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Fitted top quark masses after the goodness-of-fit selection and the weighting by $P_{\mathrm {gof} }$. The total number of permutations found in simulation is normalized to be the same as the total number of permutations observed in data. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of the panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 4:
The two-dimensional likelihood ($-2 \Delta \log\left (\mathcal {L}\right )$) for the lepton+jets channel for the 2D, hybrid, and 1D fits. The thick (thin) ellipses correspond to contours of $-2 \Delta \log\left (\mathcal {L}\right ) =$ 1 (4) allowing the construction of the one (two) $\sigma $ statistical intervals of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $. For the 1D fit, the thick and thin lines correspond to the one and two $\sigma $ statistical uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Distributions of (top left) the reconstructed top quark mass from the kinematic fit, (top right) the average reconstructed W boson mass, (bottom left) the goodness-of-fit probability, and (bottom right) the separation of the two b quark jets for the all-jets channel. The simulated $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ signal and the background from the control sample are normalized to data. The value of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ used in the simulation is 172.5 GeV and the nominal jet energy scale is applied. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Distribution of the reconstructed top quark mass from the kinematic fit for the all-jets channel. The simulated $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ signal and the background from the control sample are normalized to data. The value of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ used in the simulation is 172.5 GeV and the nominal jet energy scale is applied. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Distribution of the average reconstructed W boson mass for the all-jets channel. The simulated $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ signal and the background from the control sample are normalized to data. The value of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ used in the simulation is 172.5 GeV and the nominal jet energy scale is applied. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Distribution of the goodness-of-fit probability for the all-jets channel. The simulated $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ signal and the background from the control sample are normalized to data. The value of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ used in the simulation is 172.5 GeV and the nominal jet energy scale is applied. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Distribution of the separation of the two b quark jets for the all-jets channel. The simulated $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ signal and the background from the control sample are normalized to data. The value of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ used in the simulation is 172.5 GeV and the nominal jet energy scale is applied. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower portion of each panel shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The two-dimensional likelihood ($-2 \Delta \log\left (\mathcal {L}\right )$) for the all-jets channel for the 2D, hybrid, and 1D fits. The thick (thin) ellipses correspond to contours of $-2 \Delta \log\left (\mathcal {L}\right ) =$ 1 (4) allowing the construction of the one (two) $\sigma $ statistical intervals of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $. For the 1D fit, the thick and thin lines correspond to the one and two $\sigma $ statistical uncertainties, respectively.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Distribution of $m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }^{\mathrm {AMWT}}$ for the collision and simulated data with $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} =$ 172.5 GeV. The vertical bars show the statistical uncertainty and the hatched bands show the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The lower section of the plot shows the ratio of the yields between the collision data and the simulation.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Plot of the negative log-likelihood for data for the dilepton analysis. The continuous line represents a parabolic fit to the points.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Measurements of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the transverse momentum of the hadronically decaying top quark ($ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\rm {t,had}}$), the invariant mass of the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ system ($m_{ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} }$), the transverse momentum of the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ system ($ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} }$), and the number of jets with $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} >$ 30 GeV. The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
Measurement of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the transverse momentum of the hadronically decaying top quark ($ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\rm {t,had}}$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
Measurement of the invariant mass of the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ system ($m_{ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} }$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
Measurement of the transverse momentum of the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ system ($ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} }$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
Measurement of the number of jets with $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} >$ 30 GeV. The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Measurements of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of the b jet assigned to the hadronic decay branch ($ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\rm {b,had}}$), the pseudorapidity of the b jet assigned to the hadronic decay branch ($\left |\eta ^{\rm b,had}\right |$), the $\Delta R$ between the b jets ($\Delta R_{ { {\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}} } }$), and the $\Delta R$ between the light-quark jets ($\Delta R_{ { {\mathrm {q}} {\overline {\mathrm {q}}} } }$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
Measurement of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ of the b jet assigned to the hadronic decay branch ($ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\rm {b,had}}$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
Measurement of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the pseudorapidity of the b jet assigned to the hadronic decay branch ($\left |\eta ^{\rm b,had}\right |$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 10-c:
Measurement of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the $\Delta R$ between the b jets ($\Delta R_{ { {\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}} } }$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 10-d:
Measurement of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ as a function of the $\Delta R$ between the light-quark jets ($\Delta R_{ { {\mathrm {q}} {\overline {\mathrm {q}}} } }$). The filled circles represent the data, and the other symbols are for the simulations. For reasons of clarity the horizontal error bars are shown only for the data points and each of the simulations is shown as a single offset point with a vertical error bar representing its statistical uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty of the data is displayed by the inner error bars. For the outer error bars, the systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature.The open circles correspond to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Z2* tune, the open squares to MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 tune, and the open triangles represent MadGraph with the PYTHIA Perugia 2011 noCR tune. The open diamonds correspond to POWHEG with the PYTHIA Z2* tune and the open crosses correspond to POWHEG with HERWIG 6. The filled stars are for MC@NLO with HERWIG 6 and the open stars are for SHERPA.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Systematic uncertainty correlations for mass measurements in the lepton+jets and all-jets channels. Each point represents a single systematic uncertainty taken from Tables 1 and 2. Left panel: for the 2D lepton+jets and 1D all-jets measurements; Right panel: for the hybrid lepton+jets and the 1D all-jets measurements. The filled circles correspond to the systematic uncertainties which show a positive correlation between the two fit methods and the open circles to the systematic terms which show a negative correlation. The points shown as filled squares are those for which the systematic estimation is dominated by a statistical uncertainty, so no clear categorization is possible. The vertical and horizontal error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties in the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 11-a:
Systematic uncertainty correlations for mass measurements in the lepton+jets and all-jets channels. Each point represents a single systematic uncertainty taken from Tables 1 and 2 for the 2D lepton+jets and 1D all-jets measurements. The filled circles correspond to the systematic uncertainties which show a positive correlation between the two fit methods and the open circles to the systematic terms which show a negative correlation. The points shown as filled squares are those for which the systematic estimation is dominated by a statistical uncertainty, so no clear categorization is possible. The vertical and horizontal error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties in the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 11-b:
Systematic uncertainty correlations for mass measurements in the lepton+jets and all-jets channels. Each point represents a single systematic uncertainty taken from Tables 1 and 2 for the hybrid lepton+jets and the 1D all-jets measurements. The filled circles correspond to the systematic uncertainties which show a positive correlation between the two fit methods and the open circles to the systematic terms which show a negative correlation. The points shown as filled squares are those for which the systematic estimation is dominated by a statistical uncertainty, so no clear categorization is possible. The vertical and horizontal error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainties in the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 12:
Summary of the CMS $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ measurements and their combination. The thick error bars show the statistical uncertainty and the thin error bars show the total uncertainty. Also shown are the current Tevatron [8] and world average [7] combinations.

png pdf
Figure 13:
Results of the BLUE combining procedure on the CMS measurements showing (left) the combination coefficients, and (right) the pulls for each contribution.

png pdf
Figure 13-a:
Results of the BLUE combining procedure on the CMS measurements showing the combination coefficients for each contribution.

png pdf
Figure 13-b:
Results of the BLUE combining procedure on the CMS measurements showing the pulls for each contribution.

png pdf
Figure 14:
The combined $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 and 8 TeV measurements of $ {m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }} $ for each of the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ decay channels.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Category breakdown of the systematic uncertainties for the 2D, 1D, and hybrid measurements in the lepton+jets channel. Each term has been estimated using the procedures described in Section 6. The uncertainties are expressed in GeV and the signs are taken from the $+1\sigma $ shift in the value of the quantity. Thus a positive sign indicates an increase in the value of $m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }$ or the JSF and a negative sign indicates a decrease. With the exception of the flavor-dependent JEC terms (see Section 6), the total systematic uncertainty is obtained from the sum in quadrature of the individual systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table 2:
Category breakdown of the systematic uncertainties for the 2D, 1D and hybrid measurements in the all-jets channel. Each term has been estimated using the procedures described in Section 6. The uncertainties are expressed in GeV and the signs are taken from the $+1\sigma $ shift in the value of the quantity. Thus a positive sign indicates an increase in the value of $m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }$ or the JSF and a negative sign indicates a decrease. With the exception of the flavor-dependent JEC terms (see Section 6), the total systematic uncertainty is obtained from the sum in quadrature of the individual systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table 3:
Category breakdown of the systematic uncertainties for the AMWT measurement in the dilepton channel. Each term has been estimated using the procedures described in Section 6. The uncertainties are expressed in GeV and the signs are taken from the $+1\sigma $ shift in the value of the quantity. Thus a positive sign indicates an increase in the value of $m_{ {\mathrm {t}} }$ and a negative sign indicates a decrease. With the exception of the flavor-dependent JEC terms (see Section 6), the total systematic uncertainty is obtained from the sum in quadrature of the individual systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Table 4:
CMS measurements of the top quark mass using the data recorded at $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 TeV.

png pdf
Table 5:
Comparison of different simulations and the data. The summed $\chi ^{2}$ values and number of standard deviations are computed for the 27 points entering Figs. 9 and 10 assuming two-sided Gaussian statistics.

png pdf
Table 6:
Nominal correlation coefficients for the systematic uncertainties. The term $\rho _{\rm chan}$ is the correlation factor for measurements in the same top quark decay channel, but different years and the term $\rho _{\rm year}$ is the correlation between measurements in different channels from the same year.

png pdf
Table 7:
Combination results for the permutations of the 2D, 1D, and hybrid measurements. The permutation order is defined to be lepton+jets:all-jets:dilepton, thus 211 corresponds to the 2D lepton+jets:1D all-jets:AMWT dilepton combination.

png pdf
Table 8:
Correlations between input measurements. The elements in the table are labelled according to the analysis they correspond to (rows and columns read as 2010, 2011, 2012 followed by the $ {\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}} $ decay channel name).

png pdf
Table 9:
Category breakdown of systematic uncertainties for the combined mass result. The uncertainties are expressed in GeV.
Summary
A new set of measurements of the top quark mass has been presented, based on the data recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV during 2012, and corresponding to a luminosity of 19.7 fb$^{-1}$. The top quark mass has been measured in the lepton+jets, all-jets and dilepton decay channels, giving values of

172.35 $\pm$ 0.16 (stat) $\pm$ 0.48 (syst) GeV,
172.32 $\pm$ 0.25 (stat) $\pm$ 0.59 (syst) GeV,
and
172.82 $\pm$ 0.19 (stat) $\pm$ 1.22 (syst) GeV,

respectively.
Individually, these constitute the most precise measurements in each of the decay channels studied. When combined with the published CMS results at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 TeV, a top quark mass measurement of

172.44 $\pm$ 0.13 (stat) $\pm$ 0.47 (syst) GeV

is obtained. This is the most precise measurement of $m_{\text{top}}$ to date, with a total uncertainty of 0.48 GeV, and it supersedes all of the previous CMS measurements of the top quark mass.
The top quark mass has also been studied as a function of the event kinematical properties in the lepton+jets channel. No indications of a kinematical bias in the measurements is observed and the data are consistent with a range of predictions from current theoretical models of $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ production.
References
1 ALEPH, CDF, D0, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD Collaborations, the LEP Electroweak Working Group, the Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and the SLD Electroweak and Heavy Flavour Groups Precision electroweak measurements and constraints on the Standard Model 1012.2367
2 M. Baak et al. The electroweak fit of the standard model after the discovery of a new boson at the LHC EPJC 72 (2012) 2205, , Updates available from http://gfitter.desy.de 1209.2716
3 G. Degrassi et al. Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO JHEP 08 (2012) 1 1205.6497
4 F. Bezrukov, M. Y. Kalmykov, B. A. Kniehl, and M. Shaposhnikov Higgs boson mass and new physics JHEP 10 (2012) 140 1205.2893
5 F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton PLB 659 (2008) 703 0710.3755
6 A. D. Simone, M. P. Herzberg, and F. Wilczek Running inflation in the Standard Model PLB 678 (2009) 1 0812.4946
7 ATLAS, CDF, CMS and D0 Collaborations First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the top quark mass 1403.4427
8 The Tevatron Electroweak Working Group Combination of the CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark using up to $ 9.7\,\text{fb}^{-1} $ at the Tevatron 1407.2682
9 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass in the $ t\bar{t}\rightarrow \text{ lepton+jets } $ and $ t\bar{t}\rightarrow \text{ dilepton } $ channels using $ \sqrt{s}=7 $ $ {\mathrm { TeV}} $ ATLAS data EPJC 75 (2015) 330 1503.05427
10 A. H. Hoang and I. W. Stewart Top Mass Measurements from Jets and the Tevatron Top Quark Mass NPPS 185 (2008) 220 0808.0222
11 V. Ahrens et al. Precision predictions for the $ t \bar{t} $ production cross section at hadron colliders PLB 703 (2011) 135 1105.5824
12 A. Buckley et al. General-purpose event generators for LHC physics PR 504 (2011) 145 1101.2599
13 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
14 J. Alwall et al. MadGraph 5: going beyond JHEP 06 (2011) 128 1106.0522
15 P. Artoisenet, R. Frederix, O. Mattelaer, and R. Rietkerk Automatic spin-entangled decays of heavy resonances in Monte Carlo simulations JHEP 03 (2013) 015 1212.3460
16 T. Sj\"ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual JHEP 05 (2006) 026 hep-ph/0603175
17 S. Jadach, Z. W\cas, R. Decker, and J. H. K\"uhn The tau decay library TAUOLA: Version 2.4 CPC 76 (1993) 361
18 R. Field Early LHC Underlying Event Data - Findings and Surprises 1010.3558
19 J. Pumplin et al. New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis JHEP 07 (2002) 012 hep-ph/0201195
20 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4---a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
21 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
22 E. Re Single-top $ W $ $ t $-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
23 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
24 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
25 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
26 N. Kidonakis Next-to-next-to-leading soft-gluon corrections for the top quark cross section and transverse momentum distribution PRD 82 (2010) 114030 1009.4935
27 N. Kidonakis Differential and total cross sections for top pair and single top production 1205.3453
28 K. Melnikov and F. Petriello Electroweak gauge boson production at hadron colliders through $ O(\alpha_s^2) $ PRD 74 (2006) 114017 hep-ph/0609070
29 J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10 1007.3492
30 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov The total top quark pair production cross-section at hadron colliders through O($ \alpha_S^4 $) PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
31 CMS Collaboration Particle--Flow Event Reconstruction in CMS and Performance for Jets, Taus, and $ E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}} $ CDS
32 CMS Collaboration Commissioning of the Particle-flow Event Reconstruction with the first LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector CDS
33 CMS Collaboration Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = 8 $$ TeV $ JINST 6 (2015) P06005 CMS-EGM-13-001
1502.02701
34 CMS Collaboration Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $ \sqrt{s} = 7 $$ TeV $ JINST 7 (2012) P10002
35 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
36 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
37 CMS Collaboration Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS JINST 6 (2011) P11002 CMS-JME-10-011
1107.4277
38 CMS Collaboration Performance of b tagging at $ \sqrt{s}=8 $ TeV in multijet, $ \rm{t}\overline{\rm t} $ and boosted topology events CMS-PAS-BTV-13-001 CMS-PAS-BTV-13-001
39 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = 8 $ TeV Submitted to EPJC CMS-TOP-12-028
1505.04480
40 D0 Collaboration Direct measurement of the top quark mass at D0 PRD 58 (1998) 052001 hep-ex/9801025
41 Particle Data Group, K. A. Olive et al. Review of Particle Physics CPC 38 (2014) 090001
42 D0 Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass using dilepton events PRL 80 (1998) 2063 hep-ex/9706014
43 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top-quark mass in $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} }\ $ events with dilepton final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV EPJC 72 (2012) 2202
44 L. Sonnenschein Algebraic approach to solve $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ dilepton equations PRD 72 (2005) 095020 hep-ph/0510100
45 L. Sonnenschein Analytical solution of $ \mathrm{ t \bar{t} } $ dilepton equations PRD 73 (2006) 054015, , [Erratum: \DOI10.1103/PhysRevD.73.054015] hep-ph/060311
46 R. H. Dalitz and G. R. Goldstein Decay and polarization properties of the top quark PRD 45 (1992) 1531
47 J. D'Hondt et al. Fitting of Event Topologies with External Kinematic Constraints in CMS CMS-NOTE-2006-023
48 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top-quark mass in all-jets $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=7 $$ TeV $ EPJC 74 (2014) 2758
49 M. Botje et al. The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations 1101.0538
50 P. Z. Skands Tuning Monte Carlo generators: The Perugia tunes PRD 82 (2010) 074018 1005.3457
51 M. B\"ahr et al. Herwig++ physics and manual EPJC 58 (2008) 639 0803.0883
52 ALEPH Collaboration Study of the fragmentation of b quarks into B mesons at the Z peak PLB 512 (2001) 30 hep-ex/0106051
53 DELPHI Collaboration A study of the b-quark fragmentation function with the DELPHI detector at LEP I and an averaged distribution obtained at the Z pole EPJC 71 (2011) 1557 1102.4748
54 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top-quark pair-production cross section and the top-quark mass in the dilepton channel at $ \sqrt{s} =7 $ TeV JHEP 07 (2011) 049
55 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top-quark mass in $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}} $ events with lepton+jets final states in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}=7 $$ TeV $ JHEP 12 (2012) 105
56 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with $ \sqrt{s}= 7 $ TeV and comparison with $ \sqrt{s} = 0.9 $ TeV JHEP 09 (2011) 109 CMS-QCD-10-010
1107.0330
57 T. Gleisberg et al. Event generation with SHERPA 1.1 JHEP 02 (2009) 007 0811.4622
58 S. Hoeche, F. Krauss, S. Schumann, and F. Siegert QCD matrix elements and truncated showers JHEP 05 (2009) 053 0903.1219
59 G. Corcella et al. HERWIG 6: an event generator for hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes) JHEP 01 (2001) 010 hep-ph/0011363
60 S. Frixione and B. R. Webber Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations JHEP 06 (2002) 029 hep-ph/0204244
61 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and B. R. Webber Matching NLO QCD and parton showers in heavy flavor production JHEP 08 (2003) 007 hep-ph/0305252
62 L. Lyons, D. Gibaut, and P. Clifford How to combine correlated estimates of a single physical quantity NIMA 270 (1988) 110
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN