Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-TOP-16-014 ; CERN-EP-2018-013 | ||
| Measurements of differential cross sections of top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 11 March 2018 | ||
| JHEP 06 (2018) 002 | ||
| Abstract: Measurements of differential $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross sections are presented in the single-lepton decay channel, as a function of a number of kinematic event variables. The measurements are performed with proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV , collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC during 2016, with an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The data are compared to a variety of state-of-the-art leading-order and next-to-leading-order $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ simulations. | ||
| Links: e-print arXiv:1803.03991 [hep-ex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; CADI line (restricted) ; | ||
| Figures & Tables | Summary | Additional Tables | References | CMS Publications |
|---|
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
The distributions of $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $, $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ and $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below each of the distributions, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
The distributions of $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
The distributions of $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-c:
The distributions of $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in the modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
The distributions of $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $, $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $, $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ and $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below each of the distributions, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
The distributions of $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
The distributions of $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-c:
The distributions of $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-d:
The distributions of $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ after full event selection. The $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulation is normalized to the NNLO prediction. The ratio of the number of events in data to that in simulation is shown below the distribution, with the statistical uncertainty in the data shown by the vertical uncertainty bars. The statistical uncertainty in the number of simulation events and the uncertainties in modeling in simulation are shown by the hatched band. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Normalized $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Normalized $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Normalized $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Normalized $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (upper) and $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ (lower) differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Normalized $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Normalized $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-c:
Normalized $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-d:
Normalized $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Normalized $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ (upper) and $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ (lower) differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-a:
Normalized $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-b:
Normalized $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-c:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 5-d:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ (upper) and $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ (lower) differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
Normalized $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-c:
Normalized $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-d:
Normalized $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
Absolute $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
Absolute $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
Absolute $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
Absolute $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ (upper) and $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ (lower) differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-a:
Absolute $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-b:
Absolute $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-c:
Absolute $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-d:
Absolute $ {S_{\text {T}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
Absolute $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ (upper) and $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ (lower) differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
Absolute $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
Absolute $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-c:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-d:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 10:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ (upper) and $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ (lower) differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross sections, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations in the left plots, and compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties, in the right plots. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panels show the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-a:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-b:
Absolute $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-c:
Absolute $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to different $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ simulations. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
png pdf |
Figure 10-d:
Absolute $$ < \eta ^{\ell} > $ differential $ {{\mathrm {t}\overline {\mathrm {t}}}} $ cross section, compared to the POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation after varying the shower scales, and $ {h_{\text {damp}}} $ parameter, within their uncertainties. The vertical bars on the data represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the predictions to the data. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
The upper and lower bounds, in%, from each source of systematic uncertainty in the normalized differential cross section, over all bins of the measurement for each variable. The bounds of the total relative uncertainty are also shown. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Results of a goodness-of-fit test between the normalized cross sections in data and several models, with values given as $ {\chi ^2} $/number of degrees of freedom (ndf) |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Results of a goodness-of-fit test between the absolute cross sections in data and several models, with values given as $ {\chi ^2} $/number of degrees of freedom (ndf) |
png pdf |
Table 4:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 5:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 6:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 7:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 8:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 9:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 10:
Results of the normalized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $. |
png pdf |
Table 11:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 12:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 13:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 14:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 15:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 16:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Table 17:
Results of the absolute differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ < \eta ^{\ell} > $. |
png pdf |
Table 18:
The upper and lower bounds, in%, from each source of systematic uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section, over all bins of the measurement for each variable. The bounds of the total relative uncertainty are also shown. |
| Summary |
|
Normalized and absolute differential $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross sections with respect to several kinematic event variables are measured at the particle level in a visible phase space region. The results are based on proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV , collected by the CMS experiment with an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. The total cross section is observed to be consistent with previous results and next-to-next-to-leading-order calculations, and the differential measurements are compared to several $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production models: POWHEG+PYTHIA , POWHEG+HERWIG++ , mg5_amc@nlo-lo , and mg5_amc@nlo-nlo. The POWHEG+PYTHIA simulation is found to be generally consistent with the data, with residual differences covered by theoretical uncertainties. The jet multiplicity distribution is particularly well-modeled, having been tuned on LHC 8 TeV data. The POWHEG+HERWIG++ and mg5_amc@nlo-nlo models are shown to be consistent with data for most kinematic event variables, while the mg5_amc@nlo-lo model does not provide an accurate description of any variable measured in the data. It is expected that the results presented here will be useful for tuning $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ generators and models in the future. To facilitate this, the measurements presented here have been implemented in the RIVET framework and will be available to the wider community. |
| Additional Tables | |
png pdf |
Additional Table 1:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 2:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 3:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 4:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 5:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 6:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 7:
Results of the normalized unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 8:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 9:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 10:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 11:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 12:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 13:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 14:
Results of the absolute unregularized differential cross sections with relative uncertainties in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 15:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 16:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 17:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 18:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 19:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 20:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 21:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 22:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 23:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 24:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 25:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 26:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 27:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 28:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 29:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 30:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 31:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 32:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 33:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 34:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 35:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 36:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 37:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 38:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 39:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 40:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 41:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 42:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the regularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 43:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 44:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 45:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 46:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 47:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 48:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 49:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 50:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 51:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 52:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 53:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 54:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 55:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 56:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 57:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 58:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 59:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 60:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 61:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 62:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 63:
Covariances with theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized normalised differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 64:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {N_{\text {jets}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 65:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 66:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {S_{\text {T}}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 67:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 68:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{{\mathrm {W}}} } $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 69:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ {p_{\text {T}}^{\ell}} $. |
png pdf |
Additional Table 70:
Covariances without theoretical model uncertainties for the unregularized absolute differential cross sections in the combined channel with respect to $ | \eta ^{\ell} | $. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | CMS-00-001 |
| 2 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV | EPJC 73 (2013) 2339 | CMS-TOP-11-013 1211.2220 |
| 3 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV | EPJC 75 (2015) 542 | CMS-TOP-12-028 1505.04480 |
| 4 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of double-differential cross sections for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV and impact on parton distribution functions | EPJC 77 (2017) 459 | CMS-TOP-14-013 1703.01630 |
| 5 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the integrated and differential $ t \bar t $ production cross sections for high-$ p_T $ top quarks in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s = $ 8 TeV | PRD 94 (2016) 072002 | CMS-TOP-14-012 1605.00116 |
| 6 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t \bar{t}} $ production cross section in the all-jets final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV | EPJC 76 (2015) 128 | CMS-TOP-14-018 1509.06076 |
| 7 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of differential cross sections for top quark pair production using the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV | PRD 95 (2017) 092001 | CMS-TOP-16-008 1610.04191 |
| 8 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of normalized differential $ \mathrm{t \bar t} $ cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | Submitted to \it JHEP | CMS-TOP-16-007 1708.07638 |
| 9 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the lepton+jets channel in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector | JHEP 11 (2017) 191 | 1708.00727 |
| 10 | ATLAS Collaboration | Measurements of top-quark pair differential cross-sections in the $ e\mu $ channel in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector | EPJC 77 (2017) 292 | 1612.05220 |
| 11 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the differential cross sections for top quark pair production as a function of kinematic event variables in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 7 and 8 TeV | PRD 94 (2016) 052006 | CMS-TOP-12-042 1607.00837 |
| 12 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 13 | S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari | Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method | JHEP 11 (2007) 070 | 0709.2092 |
| 14 | P. Nason | A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms | JHEP 11 (2004) 040 | hep-ph/0409146 |
| 15 | 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 |
| 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 | T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands | PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual | JHEP 05 (2006) 026 | hep-ph/0603175 |
| 18 | T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands | A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 | CPC 178 (2008) 852 | 0710.3820 |
| 19 | 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 |
| 20 | M. Bahr et al. | Herwig++ physics and manual | EPJC 58 (2008) 639 | 0803.0883 |
| 21 | S. Gieseke, C. Rohr, and A. Siodmok | Colour reconnections in Herwig++ | EPJC 72 (2012) 2225 | 1206.0041 |
| 22 | 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 |
| 23 | CMS Collaboration | Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements | EPJC 76 (2016) 155 | CMS-GEN-14-001 1512.00815 |
| 24 | 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 |
| 25 | R. Frederix and S. Frixione | Merging meets matching in MC@NLO | JHEP 12 (2012) 061 | 1209.6215 |
| 26 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions for the LHC Run II | JHEP 04 (2015) 040 | 1410.8849 |
| 27 | M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn | Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation | NPB 855 (2012) 695 | 1109.1536 |
| 28 | 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 |
| 29 | P. Barnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov | Percent-level-precision physics at the Tevatron: Next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{q \bar{q}} \to \mathrm{t \bar{t}} + \mathrm{X} $ | PRL 109 (2012) 132001 | 1204.5201 |
| 30 | 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 |
| 31 | M. Czakon and A. Mitov | NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction | JHEP 01 (2013) 080 | 1210.6832 |
| 32 | 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 |
| 33 | 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 |
| 34 | M. Aliev et al. | HATHOR: HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR | CPC 182 (2011) 1034 | 1007.1327 |
| 35 | 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 |
| 36 | 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 |
| 37 | 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 |
| 38 | E. Re | Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method | EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 | 1009.2450 |
| 39 | Y. Li and F. Petriello | Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ | PRD 86 (2012) 094034 | 1208.5967 |
| 40 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4---a simulation toolkit | NIMA 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 41 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 42 | 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 |
| 43 | 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 |
| 44 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inclusive $ W $ and $ Z $ production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV | JHEP 10 (2011) 132 | CMS-EWK-10-005 1107.4789 |
| 45 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 46 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 47 | 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 |
| 48 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment | JINST 8 (2013) P04013 | CMS-BTV-12-001 1211.4462 |
| 49 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV | Submitted to \it JINST | CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158 |
| 50 | M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, D. Heymes, and A. Mitov | NNLO QCD predictions for fully-differential top-quark pair production at the Tevatron | JHEP 05 (2016) 034 | 1601.05375 |
| 51 | A. Buckley et al. | RIVET user manual | CPC 184 (2013) 2803 | 1003.0694 |
| 52 | CMS Collaboration | Object definitions for top quark analyses at the particle level | CDS | |
| 53 | S Schmitt | TUnfold, an algorithm for correcting migration effects in high energy physics | JINST 7 (2012) T10003 | |
| 54 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 | CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 |
| 55 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | Submitted to \it JHEP | CMS-FSQ-15-005 1802.02613 |
| 56 | CMS Collaboration | Cross section measurement of t-channel single top quark production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt s = $ 13 TeV | PLB 772 (2017) 752 | CMS-TOP-16-003 1610.00678 |
| 57 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the production cross section of a W boson in association with two b jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = 8 $ TeV | EPJC 77 (2017) 92 | CMS-SMP-14-020 1608.07561 |
| 58 | CMS Collaboration | Measurements of the associated production of a Z boson and b jets in pp collisions at $ {\sqrt{s}} = $ 8 TeV | EPJC 77 (2017) 751 | CMS-SMP-14-010 1611.06507 |
| 59 | Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al. | Review of particle physics | CPC 40 (2016) 100001 | |
| 60 | P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo | Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune | EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 | 1404.5630 |
| 61 | C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas | Scaling violations in inclusive $ \mathrm{{e}^{+}{e}}^{{-}} $ annihilation spectra | PRD 27 (1983) 105 | |
| 62 | J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands | String formation beyond leading colour | JHEP 08 (2015) 003 | 1505.01681 |
| 63 | 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 |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|