Azimuthal correlations in Z+jets events in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV
- Tumasyan, Armen et al
- arXiv:2210.16139CMS-SMP-21-003CERN-EP-2022-178
| Figure_001-f.pdfFigure_001-e.pdfFigure_001-d.pdfFigure_001-c.pdfFigure_001-b.pdfFigure_001-a.pdf |
| Figure_001-f.pdfFigure_001-e.pdfFigure_001-d.pdfFigure_001-c.pdfFigure_001-b.pdfFigure_001-a.pdf |
| Figure_001-f.pdfFigure_001-e.pdfFigure_001-d.pdfFigure_001-c.pdfFigure_001-b.pdfFigure_001-a.pdf |
| Figure_001-f.pdfFigure_001-e.pdfFigure_001-d.pdfFigure_001-c.pdfFigure_001-b.pdfFigure_001-a.pdf |
| Figure_001-f.pdfFigure_001-e.pdfFigure_001-d.pdfFigure_001-c.pdfFigure_001-b.pdfFigure_001-a.pdf |
| Figure_001-f.pdfFigure_001-e.pdfFigure_001-d.pdfFigure_001-c.pdfFigure_001-b.pdfFigure_001-a.pdf |
| Figure_002-c.pdfFigure_002-b.pdfFigure_002-a.pdf |
| Figure_002-c.pdfFigure_002-b.pdfFigure_002-a.pdf |
| Figure_002-c.pdfFigure_002-b.pdfFigure_002-a.pdf |
| Figure_003-c.pdfFigure_003-b.pdfFigure_003-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ-geneva-PB}, a comparison of the measurement with predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \geneva is shown. Both \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj predictions are multiplied by a factor 1.2 to account for the normalization of \PBM TMD~set~2 (as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:theory}). For $\ptZ > 30\GeV$ the \PZ{}+1 (\PZ{}+2) predictions describe well the one (two) jet multiplicities, whereas at higher multiplicities a deviation from these measurement is observed, which can be attributed to the missing MPI contributions (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ}). The \geneva predictions, which include MPI, are in agreement for low jet multiplicities for low \ptZ, whereas higher jet multiplicities are not well described because of missing higher order contributions in the ME calculations. \begin{figure*}[htbp] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-a.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-b.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-c.pdf} \topcaption{Jet multiplicity in three different regions of \protect\ptZ : $\ptZ <10\GeV$ (upper left), $30< \ptZ < 50\GeV$ (upper right), $\ptZ > 100\GeV $ (lower). The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the measurement, and the hatched band shows the total statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \geneva are shown. An overall normalization factor of 1.2 is applied to \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj.} \end{figure*} In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ-MLM}, the measurement is compared with predictions from \MGPyLO and \MGTMDMLM. The prediction from \MGPyLO describes the measurements in all \ptZ regions. The \MGTMDMLM prediction agrees with the measurements in all \ptZ ranges, except in the second bin at low \ptZ values where MPI plays a significant role. \par\tolerance=1000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ}, the measurement is compared with the generator \MGPyNLO with and without multiparton interactions. The MPI contribution is important in the low \ptZ region, but also at higher \ptZ and higher jet multiplicities MPI plays a role. The prediction of \MGPyNLO including MPI agrees with the measurement, even for high jet multiplicities. This behaviour is consistent with the prediction of the dependence of MPI effects on event kinematics from the \ptZ reported in~\cite{Bansal:2016iri}. \par |
| Figure_003-c.pdfFigure_003-b.pdfFigure_003-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ-geneva-PB}, a comparison of the measurement with predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \geneva is shown. Both \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj predictions are multiplied by a factor 1.2 to account for the normalization of \PBM TMD~set~2 (as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:theory}). For $\ptZ > 30\GeV$ the \PZ{}+1 (\PZ{}+2) predictions describe well the one (two) jet multiplicities, whereas at higher multiplicities a deviation from these measurement is observed, which can be attributed to the missing MPI contributions (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ}). The \geneva predictions, which include MPI, are in agreement for low jet multiplicities for low \ptZ, whereas higher jet multiplicities are not well described because of missing higher order contributions in the ME calculations. \begin{figure*}[htbp] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-a.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-b.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-c.pdf} \topcaption{Jet multiplicity in three different regions of \protect\ptZ : $\ptZ <10\GeV$ (upper left), $30< \ptZ < 50\GeV$ (upper right), $\ptZ > 100\GeV $ (lower). The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the measurement, and the hatched band shows the total statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \geneva are shown. An overall normalization factor of 1.2 is applied to \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj.} \end{figure*} In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ-MLM}, the measurement is compared with predictions from \MGPyLO and \MGTMDMLM. The prediction from \MGPyLO describes the measurements in all \ptZ regions. The \MGTMDMLM prediction agrees with the measurements in all \ptZ ranges, except in the second bin at low \ptZ values where MPI plays a significant role. \par\tolerance=1000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ}, the measurement is compared with the generator \MGPyNLO with and without multiparton interactions. The MPI contribution is important in the low \ptZ region, but also at higher \ptZ and higher jet multiplicities MPI plays a role. The prediction of \MGPyNLO including MPI agrees with the measurement, even for high jet multiplicities. This behaviour is consistent with the prediction of the dependence of MPI effects on event kinematics from the \ptZ reported in~\cite{Bansal:2016iri}. \par |
| Figure_003-c.pdfFigure_003-b.pdfFigure_003-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ-geneva-PB}, a comparison of the measurement with predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \geneva is shown. Both \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj predictions are multiplied by a factor 1.2 to account for the normalization of \PBM TMD~set~2 (as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:theory}). For $\ptZ > 30\GeV$ the \PZ{}+1 (\PZ{}+2) predictions describe well the one (two) jet multiplicities, whereas at higher multiplicities a deviation from these measurement is observed, which can be attributed to the missing MPI contributions (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ}). The \geneva predictions, which include MPI, are in agreement for low jet multiplicities for low \ptZ, whereas higher jet multiplicities are not well described because of missing higher order contributions in the ME calculations. \begin{figure*}[htbp] \centering \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-a.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-b.pdf} \includegraphics[width=0.488\textwidth]{Figure_003-c.pdf} \topcaption{Jet multiplicity in three different regions of \protect\ptZ : $\ptZ <10\GeV$ (upper left), $30< \ptZ < 50\GeV$ (upper right), $\ptZ > 100\GeV $ (lower). The error bars on the data points represent the statistical uncertainty of the measurement, and the hatched band shows the total statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \geneva are shown. An overall normalization factor of 1.2 is applied to \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj.} \end{figure*} In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ-MLM}, the measurement is compared with predictions from \MGPyLO and \MGTMDMLM. The prediction from \MGPyLO describes the measurements in all \ptZ regions. The \MGTMDMLM prediction agrees with the measurements in all \ptZ ranges, except in the second bin at low \ptZ values where MPI plays a significant role. \par\tolerance=1000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muNJ}, the measurement is compared with the generator \MGPyNLO with and without multiparton interactions. The MPI contribution is important in the low \ptZ region, but also at higher \ptZ and higher jet multiplicities MPI plays a role. The prediction of \MGPyNLO including MPI agrees with the measurement, even for high jet multiplicities. This behaviour is consistent with the prediction of the dependence of MPI effects on event kinematics from the \ptZ reported in~\cite{Bansal:2016iri}. \par |
| Figure_004-c.pdfFigure_004-b.pdfFigure_004-a.pdfFigure_003-c.pdf |
| Figure_004-c.pdfFigure_004-b.pdfFigure_004-a.pdfFigure_003-c.pdf |
| Figure_004-c.pdfFigure_004-b.pdfFigure_004-a.pdfFigure_003-c.pdf |
| Figure_005-c.pdfFigure_005-b.pdfFigure_005-a.pdfFigure_004-c.pdf |
| Figure_005-c.pdfFigure_005-b.pdfFigure_005-a.pdfFigure_004-c.pdf |
| Figure_005-c.pdfFigure_005-b.pdfFigure_005-a.pdfFigure_004-c.pdf |
| Figure_006-c.pdfFigure_006-b.pdfFigure_006-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiZJ-geneva-PB}, the measurement is compared with \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \textsc{Geneva (\PZ{}+0 NNLO)}. In low \ptZ range, the \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj predictions differ from the measurements due to the missing contribution of MPI. In the high \ptZ region the predictions agree better with the measurements (the region $\dphiZj \to \pi$ is not accessible in the \PZ{}+2 calculation). The \geneva prediction agrees with the measurement at low \ptZ, whereas at larger \ptZ the prediction differs from the measurement because of missing higher order contributions. \parFigure_005-c.pdfFigure_005-b.pdfFigure_005-a.pdf |
| Figure_006-c.pdfFigure_006-b.pdfFigure_006-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiZJ-geneva-PB}, the measurement is compared with \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \textsc{Geneva (\PZ{}+0 NNLO)}. In low \ptZ range, the \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj predictions differ from the measurements due to the missing contribution of MPI. In the high \ptZ region the predictions agree better with the measurements (the region $\dphiZj \to \pi$ is not accessible in the \PZ{}+2 calculation). The \geneva prediction agrees with the measurement at low \ptZ, whereas at larger \ptZ the prediction differs from the measurement because of missing higher order contributions. \parFigure_005-c.pdfFigure_005-b.pdfFigure_005-a.pdf |
| Figure_006-c.pdfFigure_006-b.pdfFigure_006-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiZJ-geneva-PB}, the measurement is compared with \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj and \textsc{Geneva (\PZ{}+0 NNLO)}. In low \ptZ range, the \MGTMDZj and \MGTMDZjj predictions differ from the measurements due to the missing contribution of MPI. In the high \ptZ region the predictions agree better with the measurements (the region $\dphiZj \to \pi$ is not accessible in the \PZ{}+2 calculation). The \geneva prediction agrees with the measurement at low \ptZ, whereas at larger \ptZ the prediction differs from the measurement because of missing higher order contributions. \parFigure_005-c.pdfFigure_005-b.pdfFigure_005-a.pdf |
| Figure_007-c.pdfFigure_007-b.pdfFigure_007-a.pdfFigure_006-c.pdfFigure_006-b.pdf |
| Figure_007-c.pdfFigure_007-b.pdfFigure_007-a.pdfFigure_006-c.pdfFigure_006-b.pdf |
| Figure_007-c.pdfFigure_007-b.pdfFigure_007-a.pdfFigure_006-c.pdfFigure_006-b.pdf |
| Figure_008-c.pdfFigure_008-b.pdfFigure_008-a.pdfFigure_007-c.pdfFigure_007-b.pdf |
| Figure_008-c.pdfFigure_008-b.pdfFigure_008-a.pdfFigure_007-c.pdfFigure_007-b.pdf |
| Figure_008-c.pdfFigure_008-b.pdfFigure_008-a.pdfFigure_007-c.pdfFigure_007-b.pdf |
| Figure_009-c.pdfFigure_009-b.pdfFigure_009-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiJJ-geneva-PB}, the predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj, and \geneva are shown. In general, the \MGTMDZj prediction is not sufficient to describe the measurement, whereas the \MGTMDZjj prediction describes the measurements at high \ptZ, where MPI effects are negligible. At lower \ptZ, MPI effects become important, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiJJ}. The \geneva prediction is below the measurement at low \ptZ because of missing higher order contributions, as is the prediction from \MGTMDZj. \par |
| Figure_009-c.pdfFigure_009-b.pdfFigure_009-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiJJ-geneva-PB}, the predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj, and \geneva are shown. In general, the \MGTMDZj prediction is not sufficient to describe the measurement, whereas the \MGTMDZjj prediction describes the measurements at high \ptZ, where MPI effects are negligible. At lower \ptZ, MPI effects become important, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiJJ}. The \geneva prediction is below the measurement at low \ptZ because of missing higher order contributions, as is the prediction from \MGTMDZj. \par |
| Figure_009-c.pdfFigure_009-b.pdfFigure_009-a.pdf\tolerance=3000 In Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiJJ-geneva-PB}, the predictions from \MGTMDZj, \MGTMDZjj, and \geneva are shown. In general, the \MGTMDZj prediction is not sufficient to describe the measurement, whereas the \MGTMDZjj prediction describes the measurements at high \ptZ, where MPI effects are negligible. At lower \ptZ, MPI effects become important, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:muDPhiJJ}. The \geneva prediction is below the measurement at low \ptZ because of missing higher order contributions, as is the prediction from \MGTMDZj. \par |
| Figure_010-c.pdfFigure_010-b.pdfFigure_010-a.pdf |
| Figure_010-c.pdfFigure_010-b.pdfFigure_010-a.pdf |
| Figure_010-c.pdfFigure_010-b.pdfFigure_010-a.pdf |