CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-21-008 ; CERN-EP-2022-112
Measurement of the top quark pole mass using $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet events in the dilepton final state in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
JHEP 07 (2023) 077
Abstract: A measurement of the top quark pole mass ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text{pole}}}$ in events where a top quark-antiquark pair ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) is produced in association with at least one additional jet ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet) is presented. This analysis is performed using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$^{-1}$. Events with two opposite-sign leptons in the final state (e$^{+}$e$^{-}$, $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, e$^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}$) are analyzed. The reconstruction of the main observable and the event classification are optimized using multivariate analysis techniques based on machine learning. The production cross section is measured as a function of the inverse of the invariant mass of the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet system at the parton level using a maximum likelihood unfolding. Given a reference parton distribution function (PDF), the top quark pole mass is extracted using the theoretical predictions at next-to-leading order. For the ABMP16NLO PDF, this results in ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text{pole}}} =$ 172.94 $\pm$ 1.37 GeV.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the leading (upper left) and subleading (upper right) lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and leading (lower left) and third-highest (lower right) jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the leading lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the subleading lepton ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the leading jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the third-highest jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the jet (left), and b jet (right) multiplicities, after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the jet multiplicity, after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
The observed (points) and predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the b jet multiplicity, after applying the signal selection. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 3:
The correlation between ${\rho _{\text {true}}}$ and ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ is shown for the regression NN reconstruction method (left). The ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ resolution, defined in the text, as a function of ${\rho _{\text {true}}}$ (right) for the full (blue line) and loose (orange line) kinematic reconstructions and the regression NN (red line) methods. The number of events per bin in the left plot is shown by the color scale.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
The correlation between ${\rho _{\text {true}}}$ and ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ is shown for the regression NN reconstruction method. The number of events per bin is shown by the color scale.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
The ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ resolution, defined in the text, as a function of ${\rho _{\text {true}}}$ for the full (blue line) and loose (orange line) kinematic reconstructions and the regression NN (red line) methods.

png pdf
Figure 4:
The observed (points) and MC predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ as determined by the NN reconstruction method for the e$^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}$ (left) and same-flavor dilepton channels (right). The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
The observed (points) and MC predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ as determined by the NN reconstruction method for the e$^{\pm} \mu^{\mp}$ channel. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
The observed (points) and MC predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of ${\rho _{\text {reco}}}$ as determined by the NN reconstruction method for the same-flavor dilepton channel. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 5:
The observed (points) and MC predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the signal (left) and ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+0 jet background (right) output node score of the classifier NN. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
The observed (points) and MC predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the signal output node score of the classifier NN. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
The observed (points) and MC predicted (stacked histograms) signal and background yields as a function of the ${\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+0 jet background output node score of the classifier NN. The vertical bars on the points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the sum of the signal and background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The distributions from data (points) and simulated signal and background (colored histograms) used in the maximum likelihood fits before the fit to the data. The distributions are shown for each dilepton type and each event category, where the x-axis label "mjnb'' refers to events with m jets and n b jets. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the simulated predictions.

png pdf
Figure 7:
The distributions from data (points) and simulated signal and background (colored histograms) used in the maximum likelihood fits after the fit to the data. The distributions are shown for each dilepton type and each event category, where the x-axis label "$m$j$n$b'' refers to events with $m$ jets and $n$ b jets. The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data. The hatched band represents the total uncertainty in the sum of the simulated signal and background predictions. The lower panel gives the ratio of the data to the sum of the simulated predictions.

png pdf
Figure 8:
The absolute (left) and normalized (right) ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross section as a function of $\rho $ for the data (points) and theoretical predictions described in the text using the AMBP16NLO PDF set from the NLO MC with three different ${m_{\mathrm{t}}}$ values and from the POWHEG (POW) + PYTHIA 8 (PYT) calculations (lines). The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data and the shaded region represents the total uncertainty in the measurement. The lower panels give the ratio of the predictions to the data.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
The absolute ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross section as a function of $\rho $ for the data (points) and theoretical predictions described in the text using the AMBP16NLO PDF set from the NLO MC with three different ${m_{\mathrm{t}}}$ values and from the POWHEG (POW) + PYTHIA 8 (PYT) calculations (lines). The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data and the shaded region represents the total uncertainty in the measurement. The lower panel gives the ratio of the predictions to the data.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
The normalized ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross section as a function of $\rho $ for the data (points) and theoretical predictions described in the text using the AMBP16NLO PDF set from the NLO MC with three different ${m_{\mathrm{t}}}$ values and from the POWHEG (POW) + PYTHIA 8 (PYT) calculations (lines). The vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data and the shaded region represents the total uncertainty in the measurement. The lower panel gives the ratio of the predictions to the data.

png pdf
Figure 9:
The fitted nuisance-parameter values and their impacts ${\Delta {\hat{r}_k}}$ on the signal strengths ${\hat{r}_k}$ from the fit to the data, ordered by their relative summed impact. Only the 30 highest ranked parameters are shown. The resulting fitted values of ${\hat{r}_k}$ and their total uncertainties are also given. The nuisance-parameter values (${\hat{\theta}}$, black lines) are shown in comparison to their input values ${\theta _0}$ before the fit and relative to their uncertainty ${\Delta \theta}$. The impact ${\Delta {\hat{r}_k}}$ for each nuisance parameter is the difference between the nominal best fit value of ${r_k}$ and the best fit value when only that nuisance parameter is set to its best fit value ${\hat{\theta}}$ while all others are left free. The red and blue lines correspond to the variation in ${\Delta {\hat{r}_k}}$ when the nuisance parameter is varied up and down by its fitted uncertainty (${\Delta \theta}$), respectively. The corresponding gray, red, and blue regions show the expected values from fits to pseudo-data. For the nuisance parameters associated with the ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+0-jet normalization and ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text {MC}}}$, the values after the fit to the data are given, because no prior pdf is assigned.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Left: The ${\chi ^2}$ values versus ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text {pole}}}$ from the fit of the measured normalized ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross sections to the theoretical predictions using the ABMP16NLO (blue points) and CT18NLO (red points) PDF sets. The minimum ${\chi ^2}$ value and the number of degrees of freedom (ndof) are given for each fit. Right: The measured normalized ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross section (points) as a function of $\rho $, compared to the predictions using the two PDF sets and the corresponding best fit values for ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text {pole}}}$ (hatched bands). The lower panel gives the ratio of the theoretical predictions to the measured values. For both panels, the vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data, the height of the hatched bands represent the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, and the gray band gives the total uncertainty in the measured cross section.

png pdf
Figure 10-a:
The ${\chi ^2}$ values versus ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text {pole}}}$ from the fit of the measured normalized ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross sections to the theoretical predictions using the ABMP16NLO (blue points) and CT18NLO (red points) PDF sets. The minimum ${\chi ^2}$ value and the number of degrees of freedom (ndof) are given for each fit.

png pdf
Figure 10-b:
The measured normalized ${\mathrm{t} \mathrm{\bar{t}}}$+jet differential cross section (points) as a function of $\rho $, compared to the predictions using the two PDF sets and the corresponding best fit values for ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text {pole}}}$ (hatched bands). The lower panel gives the ratio of the theoretical predictions to the measured values. For both panels, the vertical bars on the points show the statistical uncertainty in the data, the height of the hatched bands represent the theoretical uncertainties in the predictions, and the gray band gives the total uncertainty in the measured cross section.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
A list of the event categories and distributions used in the maximum likelihood fit.

png pdf
Table 2:
The relative uncertainties $\Delta {{{\sigma _{{{\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}} \text {+jet}}}} ^k}}$ in the parton-level cross section values ${{\sigma _{{{\mathrm{t} {}\mathrm{\bar{t}}} \text {+jet}}}} ^k}$ and their sources in each bin $k$ of the $\rho $ distribution. The statistical uncertainty is evaluated by keeping all nuisance parameters fixed to their values after the fit to data. The breakdown of the uncertainty is obtained by repeating the fit after fixing all but the nuisance parameters related to the components under consideration to their fitted values. The partial uncertainty is then estimated by subtracting the statistical component from the total uncertainty obtained with this procedure. The quadratic sum of the contributions is different from the total uncertainty because of correlations between the nuisance parameters.
Summary
Measurements are presented of the normalized differential cross section of top quark-antiquark pair ($\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$) production in association with at least one additional jet as a function of the inverse of the invariant mass of the $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet system $\rho=2{m_0} /{m_{\mathrm{t\bar{t}}+\text{jet}}} $, with the scaling constant ${m_0} = $ 170 GeV. Proton-proton collision data collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV are used, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.3 fb$^{-1}$. Events in the dilepton decay channel are considered, and a novel multivariate analysis technique is applied to maximize the sensitivity to the signal process. The differential cross section is measured at the parton level using a maximum likelihood fit to final-state observables, where all systematic uncertainties are profiled. The value of the top quark pole mass ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text{pole}}}$ is extracted by comparing the measured $\mathrm{t\bar{t}}$+jet normalized differential cross section as a function of $\rho$ to theoretical predictions at next-to-leading order in quantum chromodynamics, obtained with two sets of parton distribution functions. The ${{m_{\mathrm{t}}} ^{\text{pole}}}$ values is determined to be 172.94 $\pm$ 1.37 GeV and 172.16 $\pm$ 1.44 GeV using the ABMP16NLO and CT18NLO parton distribution functions, respectively. Here, the uncertainties shown include the total statistical and systematic uncertainties including extrapolation uncertainties, and the theoretical uncertainties from the parton distribution functions and the matrix-element scales. The results are in good agreement with previous measurements.
References
1 Gfitter Group Collaboration The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC EPJC 74 (2014) 3046 1407.3792
2 J. de Blas et al. Electroweak precision observables and Higgs-boson signal strengths in the standard model and beyond: present and future JHEP 12 (2016) 135 1608.01509
3 S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte Parton distribution functions, $ {\alpha_S}, $ and heavy-quark masses for LHC Run II PRD 96 (2017) 014011 1701.05838
4 Particle Data Group, P. A. Zyla et al. Review of particle physics Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020 (2020) 083C01
5 G. Degrassi et al. Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the standard model at NNLO JHEP 08 (2012) 098 1205.6497
6 S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the electroweak vacuum PLB 716 (2012) 214 1207.0980
7 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass in the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\to{} $dilepton channel from $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV ATLAS data PLB 761 (2016) 350 1606.02179
8 ATLAS Collaboration Top-quark mass measurement in the all-hadronic $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ decay channel at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 09 (2017) 118 1702.07546
9 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass in the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\to{} $lepton+jets channel from $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV ATLAS data and combination with previous results EPJC 79 (2019) 290 1810.01772
10 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass using proton-proton data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV PRD 93 (2016) 072004 CMS-TOP-14-022
1509.04044
11 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass in the dileptonic $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ decay channel using the mass observables $ m_{\mathrm{b}\ell} $, $ m_{\mathrm{T2}}$, $ and $ m_{\mathrm{b}\ell\nu} $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV PRD 96 (2017) 032002 CMS-TOP-15-008
1704.06142
12 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass with lepton+jets final states using pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV EPJC 78 (2018) 891 CMS-TOP-17-007
1805.01428
13 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass in the all-jets final state at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and combination with the lepton+jets channel EPJC 79 (2019) 313 CMS-TOP-17-008
1812.10534
14 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the top quark mass using events with a single reconstructed top quark in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JHEP 12 (2021) 161 CMS-TOP-19-009
2108.10407
15 S. Ferrario Ravasio, T. Je\vzo, P. Nason, and C. Oleari A theoretical study of top-mass measurements at the LHC using NLO+PS generators of increasing accuracy EPJC 78 (2018) 458 1906.09166
16 M. Butenschoen et al. Top quark mass calibration for Monte Carlo event generators PRL 117 (2016) 232001 1608.01318
17 ATLAS, CDF, CMS, and D0 Collaborations First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the top-quark mass 2014 1403.4427
18 S. Moch et al. High precision fundamental constants at the TeV scale 2014 1405.4781
19 A. Juste et al. Determination of the top quark mass circa 2013: methods, subtleties, perspectives EPJC 74 (2014) 3119 1310.0799
20 A. H. Hoang What is the top quark mass? Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 225 2004.12915
21 A. H. Hoang The top mass: interpretation and theoretical uncertainties in Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP2014): Cannes, France, September 28--October 3, 2014 2014 1412.3649
22 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross section, the top quark mass, and the strong coupling constant using dilepton events in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV EPJC 79 (2019) 368 CMS-TOP-17-001
1812.10505
23 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross-section using e$\mu$ events with b-tagged jets in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 74 (2014) 3109 1406.5375
24 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross section in the e$\mu$ channel in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2016) 029 CMS-TOP-13-004
1603.02303
25 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross section using events with one lepton and at least one jet in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JHEP 09 (2017) 051 CMS-TOP-16-006
1701.06228
26 ATLAS Collaboration Determination of the top-quark pole mass using $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}+1 $-jet events collected with the ATLAS experiment in 7 $ TeV pp $ collisions JHEP 10 (2015) 121 1507.01769
27 D0 Collaboration Measurement of the inclusive $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production cross section in $ {{\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{\bar{p}}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $1.96 TeV and determination of the top quark pole mass PRD 94 (2016) 092004 1605.06168
28 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of lepton differential distributions and the top quark mass in $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 77 (2017) 804 1709.09407
29 CMS Collaboration Measurement of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ normalised multi-differential cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions EPJC 80 (2020) 658 CMS-TOP-18-004
1904.05237
30 U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, and P. Uwer Measuring the running top-quark mass PRD 80 (2009) 054009 0906.5273
31 J. Fuster et al. Extracting the top-quark running mass using $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}+1 $-jet events produced at the Large Hadron Collider EPJC 77 (2017) 794 1704.00540
32 CMS Collaboration Running of the top quark mass from proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV PLB 803 (2020) 135263 CMS-TOP-19-007
1909.09193
33 S. Alioli et al. A new observable to measure the top-quark mass at hadron colliders EPJC 73 (2013) 2438 1303.6415
34 G. Bevilacqua et al. Top quark mass studies with $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\text{j} $ at the LHC JHEP 03 (2018) 169 1710.07515
35 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the top-quark mass in $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}+1 $-jet events collected with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV JHEP 11 (2019) 150 1905.02302
36 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
37 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS L1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
38 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
39 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
40 CMS Collaboration Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid CMS-PAS-TDR-15-002 CMS-PAS-TDR-15-002
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 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
43 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV using the CMS detector JINST 14 (2019) P07004 CMS-JME-17-001
1903.06078
44 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup per particle identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
45 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
46 CMS Collaboration ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run 2 summary plots CDS
47 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
48 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P06015 CMS-MUO-16-001
1804.04528
49 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
50 S. Frixione, G. Ridolfi, and P. Nason A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction JHEP 09 (2007) 126 0707.3088
51 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
52 NNPDF Collaboration Unbiased global determination of parton distributions and their uncertainties at NNLO and at LO NPB 855 (2012) 153 1107.2652
53 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
54 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
55 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS $ {PYTHIA8} $ tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
56 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
57 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MCatNLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
58 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
59 E. Re Single-top $ \mathrm{W}\mathrm{t} $-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
60 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
61 CMS Collaboration Investigations of the impact of the parton shower tuning in PYTHIA 8} in the modelling of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 and 13 TeV CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021 CMS-PAS-TOP-16-021
62 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
63 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
64 M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-pair production in hadronic collisions JHEP 01 (2007) 013 hep-ph/0611129
65 S. Mrenna and P. Richardson Matching matrix elements and parton showers with HERWIG and PYTHIA JHEP 05 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0312274
66 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
67 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
68 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
69 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
70 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
71 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
72 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $ \mathcal{O}({{\alpha_S}}^4) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
73 N. Kidonakis Two-loop soft anomalous dimensions for single top quark associated production with a $ \mathrm{W^{-}} $ or $ \mathrm{H}^{-} $ PRD 82 (2010) 054018 1005.4451
74 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams Vector boson pair production at the LHC JHEP 07 (2011) 018 1105.0020
75 Y. Li and F. Petriello Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in the framework of the FEWZ simulation code PRD 86 (2012) 094034 1208.5967
76 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
77 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC PRL 117 (2016) 182002 1606.02625
78 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
79 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez $ FastJet $ user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
80 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P05011 CMS-BTV-16-002
1712.07158
81 CMS Collaboration A deep neural network for simultaneous estimation of $ \mathrm{b} $ jet energy and resolution Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 4 (2020) 10 CMS-HIG-18-027
1912.06046
82 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
83 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
84 CMS Collaboration Measurement of normalized differential $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ cross sections in the dilepton channel from pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JHEP 04 (2018) 060 CMS-TOP-16-007
1708.07638
85 CMS Collaboration Measurements of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV using events containing two leptons JHEP 02 (2019) 149 CMS-TOP-17-014
1811.06625
86 L. Sonnenschein Analytical solution of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}} $ dilepton equations PRD 73 (2006) 054015 hep-ph/0603011
87 M. Abadi et al. TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems 2016. Software available from 1603.04467
88 F. Chollet et al. Keras 2015
89 J. Snoek, H. Larochelle, and R. P. Adams Practical Bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms 2012 1206.2944
90 E. Brochu, V. M. Cora, and N. de Freitas A tutorial on Bayesian optimization of expensive cost functions, with application to active user modeling and hierarchical reinforcement learning 2010 1012.2599
91 F. Nogueira Bayesian optimization: open source constrained global optimization tool for Python link
92 R. D. Cousins Generalization of chisquare goodness-of-fit test for binned data using saturated models, with application to histograms 2013
93 Y. Ganin and V. Lempitsky Unsupervised domain adaptation by backpropagation 2015 1409.7495
94 J. Kieseler, K. Lipka, and S. Moch Calibration of the top-quark Monte Carlo mass PRL 116 (2016) 162001 1511.00841
95 F. James and M. Roos MINUIT--a system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations CPC 10 (1975) 343
96 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005
97 CMS Collaboration Precise determination of the mass of the Higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV EPJC 75 (2015) 212 CMS-HIG-14-009
1412.8662
98 ATLAS and CMS Collaborations Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV JHEP 08 (2016) 045 1606.02266
99 J. S. Conway Incorporating nuisance parameters in likelihoods for multisource spectra in Proc. 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT 2011), Geneva, 2011 1103.0354
100 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS EPJC 81 (2021) 800 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
101 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing energy reconstruction in 13 $ TeV pp $ collision data using the CMS detector CMS-PAS-JME-16-004 CMS-PAS-JME-16-004
102 CMS Collaboration Performance of the pile up jet identification in CMS for Run 2 CDS
103 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon trigger system in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JINST 16 (2021) P07001 CMS-MUO-19-001
2102.04790
104 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
105 J. R. Christiansen and P. Z. Skands String formation beyond leading colour JHEP 08 (2015) 003 1505.01681
106 M. G. Bowler e$^{+}$e$^{-}$ production of heavy quarks in the string model Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 169
107 C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt, and P. M. Zerwas Scaling violations in inclusive e$^{+}$e$^{-}$ annihilation spectra PRD 27 (1983) 105
108 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production cross section in the all-jets final state in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV EPJC 76 (2016) 128 CMS-TOP-14-018
1509.06076
109 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
110 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross section for $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{t}} $ production in the dilepton final state at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary , CERN, 2016
CMS-PAS-TOP-16-011
CMS-PAS-TOP-16-011
111 R. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples CPC 77 (1993) 219
112 S. Alioli, S. Moch, and P. Uwer Hadronic top-quark pair-production with one jet and parton showering JHEP 01 (2012) 137 1110.5251
113 S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, and S. Moch NLO PDFs from the ABMP16 fit EPJC 78 (2018) 477 1803.07537
114 T.-J. Hou et al. Progress in the CTEQ-TEA NNLO global QCD analysis 2019 1908.11394
115 G. Bevilacqua, H. B. Hartanto, M. Kraus, and M. Worek Off-shell top quarks with one jet at the LHC: a comprehensive analysis at NLO QCD JHEP 11 (2016) 098 1609.01659
116 S. Alioli et al. Phenomenology of $ \mathrm{t\bar{t}}\text{j}+{\mathrm{X}} $ production at the LHC JHEP 05 (2022) 146 2202.07975
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN