Abstract
The production of Z boson pairs in proton–proton (\({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \)) collisions, \({{\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow ({\mathrm{Z}}/\gamma ^*)({\mathrm{Z}}/\gamma ^*) \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell '}\), where \({\ell ,\ell ' = {\mathrm{e}}}\) or \({{\upmu }}\), is studied at a center-of-mass energy of 13\(\,\text {TeV}\) with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 137\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\), collected during 2016–2018. The \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) production cross section, \(\sigma _{\text {tot}} ({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} ) = 17.4 \pm 0.3 \,\text {(stat)} \pm 0.5 \,\text {(syst)} \pm 0.4 \,\text {(theo)} \pm 0.3 \,\text {(lumi)} \text { pb} \), measured for events with two pairs of opposite-sign, same-flavor leptons produced in the mass region \({60< m_{\ell ^+\ell ^-} < 120\,\text {GeV}}\) is consistent with standard model predictions. Differential cross sections are also measured and agree with theoretical predictions. The invariant mass distribution of the four-lepton system is used to set limits on anomalous \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \gamma }\) couplings.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Measurements of diboson production in proton–proton (\({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \)) collisions, such as Z boson pair (\({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \)) production, at the CERN LHC allow precision tests of the standard model (SM). In the SM, \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) production proceeds mainly through quark-antiquark t- and u-channel scattering diagrams. In calculations at higher orders in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), gluon-gluon fusion also contributes via box diagrams with quark loops. There are no tree-level contributions to \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) production from triple gauge boson vertices in the SM. Anomalous triple gauge couplings (aTGC) \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \gamma }\) are introduced using an effective Lagrangian following Ref. [1]. In this parametrization, two \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) and two \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \gamma }\) couplings are allowed by the electromagnetic gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance for on-shell \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) bosons and are parametrized by two CP-violating (\({f_4^{{\mathrm{V}}}}\)) and two CP-conserving (\({f_5^{{\mathrm{V}}}}\)) parameters, where \({{{\mathrm{V}}} = ({\mathrm{Z}}, \gamma )}\). Nonzero aTGC values could be induced by new physics models such as supersymmetry [2]. The results can be also expressed in terms of parameters calculated within the effective field theory (EFT) framework, per convention used in Ref. [3] and references therein. In contrast to the anomalous couplings of electroweak (EW) vector bosons, the EFT framework allows an unambiguous calculation of loop effects and provides a simpler interpretation of the results than the aTGC framework.
Previous measurements of the production cross section for pairs of on-shell \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) bosons at the LHC were performed by the CMS Collaboration with data sets corresponding to integrated luminosities of 5.1\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\) at \(\sqrt{s} = 7\,\text {TeV} \) [4] and 19.6\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\) at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\,\text {TeV} \) [5, 6] in the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell ^{\prime \prime }}\) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\nu }\) decay channels, where \({\ell = {\mathrm{e}}}\) or \({{\upmu }}\) and \({\ell ^{\prime \prime } = {\mathrm{e}}, {\upmu }}\), or \({{\uptau }}\); and with an integrated luminosity of 2.6\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\) [7] and 35.9\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\) [8] at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\,\text {TeV} \) in the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell ' }\) decay channel, where \({\ell ' = {\mathrm{e}}}\) or \({{\upmu }}\). All of the results agree with SM predictions. The ATLAS Collaboration reported similar results at \(\sqrt{s} = 7\), 8, and 13\(\,\text {TeV}\) [9,10,11,12,13,14], which also agree with SM predictions. These measurements are important to test predictions that were recently made available at next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in QCD [15,16,17]. A comparison of these predictions with data for a range of center-of-mass energies provides an insight into the structure of the EW gauge sector of the SM.
This paper reports a study of the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) production in the four-lepton decay channel (\({{\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell ' }\), where \({2\ell }\) and \({2\ell '}\) indicate pairs of opposite-sign electrons or muons) at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\,\text {TeV} \), with a data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of \(137{\,\text {fb}^{-1}} \) recorded in 2016–2018. Both \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) bosons are selected to be on-shell, defined as the mass range 60–120\(\,\text {GeV}\). Fiducial and total cross sections are measured, differential cross sections are presented as a function of different kinematic variables. The invariant mass distribution of the four-lepton system is used to search for anomalous \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \gamma }\) couplings.
2 The CMS detector
A detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [18].
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6\(\text { m}\) internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8\(\text { T}\). Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, which provide coverage in pseudorapidity \({| \eta | < 1.479}\) in a cylindrical barrel and \(1.479< | \eta | < 3.0\) in two endcap regions. Forward calorimeters extend the coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors to \(|\eta | < 5.0\). Muons are detected in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid in the range \(|\eta | < 2.4\), with detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive-plate chambers.
Electron momenta are estimated by combining energy measurements in the ECAL with momentum measurements in the tracker. The momentum resolution for electrons with transverse momentum \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \approx 45\,\text {GeV} \) from \({{\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{+} {{\mathrm{e}}}{}^{-}}\) decays ranges from 1.7% for nonshowering electrons in the barrel region to 4.5% for showering electrons in the endcaps [19]. Matching muons to tracks identified in the silicon tracker results in a \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) resolution for muons with \(20<p_{\mathrm {T}} < 100\,\text {GeV} \) of 1.3–2.0% in the barrel and better than 6% in the endcaps. The \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) resolution in the barrel is better than 10% for muons with \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) up to 1\(\,\text {TeV}\) [20, 21].
Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [22]. The first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100\(\text { kHz}\) within a time interval of less than 4 \(\upmu \)s. The second level, known as the high-level trigger, consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event reconstruction software optimized for fast processing, and reduces the event rate to around 1\(\text { kHz}\) before data storage.
3 Signal and background simulation
Several Monte Carlo (MC) samples are used in the analysis to optimize the selection, calculate the signal efficiency, and estimate background contamination. The pythia 8.226 and 8.230 [23, 24] packages are used for parton showering, hadronization, and the underlying event simulation with the CUETP8M1 tune [25] and the parton distribution function (PDF) NNPDF23_lo_as_0130 [26] for the 2016 data-taking period, and the CP5 tune [27] and the NNPDF 31_nnlo_as_0118 PDF for the 2017 and 2018 data-taking periods.
Signal events are generated with powheg 2.0 [24, 28,29,30,31] at next-to-leading order (NLO) in QCD for quark-antiquark (\({{\mathrm{q}} {{\mathrm{q}}}}\)) processes and leading order (LO) for quark-gluon processes. This includes \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\), \({{\mathrm{Z}} \gamma ^*}\), \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\), \(\gamma ^*\gamma ^*\) with a constraint of \({m_{\ell \ell '} > 4\,\text {GeV}}\) applied to all pairs of oppositely charged leptons at the generator level to avoid infrared divergences. The gluon-gluon loop-induced process, \({{\mathrm{g}} {\mathrm{g}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\), is simulated at LO with mcfm v7.0 [32]. It also includes interference with the SM Higgs off-shell production. The SM Higgs decay is modeled with jhugen 3.1.8 [33,34,35] at LO. The cross sections are scaled to correspond to cross section values calculated at NNLO in QCD for \({{\mathrm{q}} {{\mathrm{q}}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) [15] (with a K factor of 1.1) and at NLO in QCD for \({{\mathrm{g}} {\mathrm{g}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) [36] (K factor of 1.7). Electroweak \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) production in association with two jets is generated with MadGraph [37] at LO. It amounts to approximately 1% of the total number of \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) events.
Simulated events for the irreducible background processes containing four prompt leptons in the final state, such as \({{{\mathrm{t}} {}{{\mathrm{t}}}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\), \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\), \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\), and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\), where the last three are combined and denoted as VVV, are generated with MadGraph 5_amc@nlo v2.4.2 [37] at NLO with zero or one outgoing partons in the matrix element calculation and merged with the parton shower using the FxFx scheme [38]. The same MC is used for \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) simulation.
Event samples with aTGC contributions included are generated at LO with sherpa v2.1.1 [39]. The distributions from the sherpa samples are normalized such that the total yield of the SM sample is the same as that of the powheg+mcfm sample. More details are discussed in Sect. 10.
The detector response is simulated using a detailed description of the CMS detector implemented with the Geant4 package [40]. The reconstruction in simulation and data uses the same algorithms. The simulated samples include additional interactions per bunch crossing, referred to as pileup. The simulated events are weighted so that the pileup distribution matches the data.
Results are also compared to fixed-order predictions produced via the Matrix framework [41], a parton-level MC generator that uses tree and one-loop amplitudes from OpenLoops 2 [42] and two-loop amplitudes from Ref. [43], capable of producing differential predictions at up to NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW, as implemented in Matrix v2.0.0_beta1 [44]. The calculation is performed with the NNPDF31_nnlo_as_0118_luxqed [45] PDF set with dynamic renormalization (\(\mu _{\mathrm {R}}\)) and factorization scales (\(\mu _{\mathrm {F}}\)) set to the four lepton mass for the differential and fiducial predictions, and with fixed scale set to the nominal Z boson mass for the total cross section. The quark-induced processes are calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW. The gluon-induced contribution is calculated at NLO in QCD [46]. Photon-induced contributions are also included at up to NLO EW. The calculation uses massless leptons, which leads to a divergence at low dilepton mass. To avoid this divergence, we impose the requirement \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell } > 5\,\text {GeV}}\) on the photon-induced component for total cross section predictions. With this condition, the photon-induced contribution is less than 1% of the total production rate. The quark-induced NNLO QCD and NLO EW contributions are combined multiplicatively, and the gluon- and photon-induced contributions are combined additively following the procedure described in Ref. [44]. The predictions reported here are consistent with those published in Refs. [15,16,17].
4 Event reconstruction
Individual particles – electrons, muons, photons, charged and neutral hadrons – in each collision event are identified and reconstructed with the CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [47] from a combination of signals from all subdetectors. Reconstructed electrons [19] and muons [20] are considered as lepton candidates if they have \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{e}}} > 7\,\text {GeV}}\) and \({|\eta ^{{\mathrm{e}}} | < 2.5}\) or \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\upmu }} > 5\,\text {GeV}}\) and \({|\eta ^{{\upmu }} | < 2.4}\).
Lepton candidates are also required to originate from the primary vertex, defined as the reconstructed \({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \) interaction vertex with the largest value of summed physics object \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^2\). The physics objects used in the primary vertex definition are the objects returned by a jet-finding algorithm [48, 49] applied to all charged tracks associated with the vertex. The distance of closest approach between each lepton track and the primary vertex is required to be less than 0.5\(\text { cm}\) in the plane transverse to the beam axis, and less than 1\(\text { cm}\) in the direction along the beam axis. Furthermore, the significance of the three-dimensional impact parameter relative to the primary vertex, \(\mathrm {SIP_{3D}}\), is required to satisfy \(\mathrm {SIP_{3D}} \equiv | \mathrm {IP} / \sigma _\mathrm {IP} | < 4\) for each lepton, where \(\mathrm {IP}\) is the distance of closest approach of each lepton track to the primary vertex and \(\sigma _\mathrm {IP}\) is its associated uncertainty.
Lepton candidates are required to be isolated from other particles in the event. The relative isolation is defined as
where the sums run over the charged and neutral hadrons, and photons identified by the PF algorithm, in a cone defined by \(\varDelta R \equiv \sqrt{\smash [b]{\left( \varDelta \eta \right) ^2 + \left( \varDelta \varphi \right) ^2}} < 0.3\) around the lepton momentum direction, where \(\varphi \) is the azimuthal angle in radians. To minimize the contribution of charged particles from pileup to the isolation calculation, charged hadrons are included only if they originate from the primary vertex. The contribution of neutral particles from pileup is \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\mathrm {PU}}\). For electrons, \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\mathrm {PU}}\) is evaluated with the “jet area” method described in Ref. [50]; for muons, it is half of the summed \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) of all charged particles in the cone originating from pileup vertices. The average factor of one half accounts for the expected ratio of neutral to charged particle production in hadronic interactions. A lepton is considered isolated if \(R_\text {iso} < 0.35\).
The lepton reconstruction, identification, and isolation efficiencies are measured with a “tag-and-probe” technique [51] applied to a sample of \({{\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^+\ell ^-}\) data events. The measurements are performed in several bins of \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell }}\) and \({|\eta ^\ell |}\). The electron reconstruction and selection efficiency in the ECAL barrel (endcaps) varies from about 85 (77)% at \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{e}}} \approx 10\,\text {GeV}}\) to about 95 (89)% for \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{e}}} \ge 20\,\text {GeV}}\), whereas in the barrel-endcap transition region this efficiency is about 85% averaged over electrons with \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{e}}} > 7\,\text {GeV}}\). The muons are reconstructed and identified with efficiencies above \({\sim }98\%\) within \({|\eta ^{{\upmu }} | < 2.4}\).
5 Event selection
The primary triggers for this analysis require the presence of a pair of loosely isolated leptons of the same or different flavors [22]. The highest \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) lepton must have \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell } > 17\,\text {GeV}}\), and the subleading lepton must have \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{e}}} > 12\,\text {GeV}}\) if it is an electron or \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\upmu }} > 8\,\text {GeV}}\) if it is a muon. The tracks of the triggering leptons are required to originate within 2 mm of each other in the plane transverse to the beam axis. Triggers requiring a triplet of lower-\(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) leptons with no isolation criteria, or a single high-\(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) electron or muon, are also used. An event is accepted if it passes any trigger regardless of the decay channel. The total trigger efficiency for events within the acceptance of this analysis is greater than 98%.
The four-lepton candidate selection is based on the one used in the recent CMS Higgs boson measurement [52]. A signal event must contain at least two \({{\mathrm{Z}}/\gamma ^{*}}\) candidates, each formed from an oppositely charged pair of isolated electron or muon candidates. Among the four leptons, the highest \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) lepton must have \(p_{\mathrm {T}} > 20\,\text {GeV} \), and the second-highest \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) lepton must have \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{e}}} > 12\,\text {GeV}}\) if it is an electron or \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\upmu }} > 10\,\text {GeV}}\) if it is a muon. All leptons are required to be separated from each other by \({\varDelta R \left( \ell _1, \ell _2 \right) > 0.02}\), and electrons are required to be separated from muons by \({\varDelta R \left( {\mathrm{e}}, \mu \right) > 0.05}\).
Within each event, all permutations of leptons giving a valid pair of \({{\mathrm{Z}}/\gamma ^{*}}\) candidates are considered separately. Within each four-lepton candidate, the dilepton candidate with an invariant mass closest to 91.2\(\,\text {GeV}\), taken as the nominal \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) boson mass [53], is denoted \({{\mathrm{Z}} _1}\) and is required to have a mass greater than 40\(\,\text {GeV}\). The other dilepton candidate is denoted \({{\mathrm{Z}} _2}\) and is required to have a mass greater than 4\(\,\text {GeV}\). Both \(m_{Z_1}\) and \(m_{Z_2}\) are required to be less than 120\(\,\text {GeV}\). All pairs of oppositely charged leptons in the four-lepton candidate are required to have \({m_{\ell \ell '} > 4\,\text {GeV}}\) regardless of their flavor. In the rare case of further ambiguity, which occurs in less than 0.5% of events when five or more passing lepton candidates are found, the \({{\mathrm{Z}} _2}\) candidate that maximizes the scalar \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) sum of the four leptons is chosen.
The \({{\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) cross section is measured using events where both \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} _1}}\) and \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} _2}}\) are greater than 60\(\,\text {GeV}\). Decays of the \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) bosons to \({{\uptau }}\) leptons with subsequent decays to electrons and muons are heavily suppressed by the requirements on lepton \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \), and the contribution of such events is less than 0.5% of the total \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) yield. If these events pass the selection requirements of the analysis, they are considered signal, although they are not considered at generator level in the cross section measurement procedure. Thus, the correction for possible \(\tau \) decays is included in the efficiency calculation.
6 Background estimation
The requirement of four well-reconstructed and isolated lepton candidates strongly suppresses any background; therefore this analysis has very low background contributions, dominated by \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) boson and \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) diboson production in association with jets, and by t t production. In a small fraction of cases, particles from jet fragmentation satisfy both lepton identification and isolation criteria, and thus are misidentified as signal leptons. This background is estimated using control data samples, as decribed below.
The probability for such objects to be selected is measured from a sample of \({{\mathrm{Z}} +\ell _\text {candidate}}\) events, where \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) denotes a pair of oppositely charged, same-flavor leptons that pass all analysis requirements and satisfy \({| m_{\ell ^+\ell ^-} - m_{{\mathrm{Z}}} | < 10\,\text {GeV}}\), where \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}}}}\) is the nominal \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) boson mass. Each event in this sample must have exactly one additional object \({\ell _\text {candidate}}\) that passes relaxed identification requirements with no isolation requirements applied. The misidentification probability for each lepton flavor, measured in bins of lepton candidate \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) and \(\eta \), is defined as the ratio between the number of candidates that pass the final isolation and identification requirements and the total number of candidates in the sample. The number of \({{\mathrm{Z}} +\ell _\text {candidate}}\) events is corrected for the contamination from \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) production and for \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) events in which one lepton is not reconstructed. These events have a third genuine, isolated lepton that must be excluded from the misidentification probability calculation. The \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) contamination is suppressed by requiring the missing transverse momentum \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss} \) to be below 25\(\,\text {GeV}\). The \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss} \) is defined as the magnitude of the missing transverse momentum vector \({\mathbf {p}}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}} \), the projection onto the plane transverse to the beams of the negative vector sum of the momenta of all reconstructed PF candidates in the event, corrected for the jet energy scale. The transverse mass, calculated as \({m_{\mathrm {T}} \equiv \sqrt{\smash [b]{(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\ell + p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss})^2 - ({\mathbf {p}}_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell } + {\mathbf {p}}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}})^2}}}\), is required to be less than 30\(\,\text {GeV}\). The residual contribution of \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) events, which can be up to a few percent of the events with \({\ell _\text {candidate}}\) passing all selection criteria, is estimated from simulation and subtracted.
To account for all sources of background events, two control samples are used to estimate the number of background events in the signal regions. Both are defined as samples that contain events with a dilepton candidate satisfying all requirements (\({{\mathrm{Z}} _1}\)) and two additional lepton candidates \({\ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}\). In one control sample, enriched in \({{\mathrm{W}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) events, one \({\ell }\) candidate is required to satisfy the full identification and isolation criteria and the other must fail the full criteria and instead satisfy only the relaxed ones; in the other, enriched in \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\)+jets events, both \({\ell }\) candidates must satisfy the relaxed criteria, but fail the full criteria. The additional leptons must have opposite charges and the same flavor (\({{\mathrm{e}} ^{\pm }{\mathrm{e}} ^{\mp }}\) and \({{\upmu } ^{\pm }{\upmu } ^{\mp }}\)). From this set of events, the expected number of background events in the signal region, denoted “\({{\mathrm{Z}}}\)+X” in the figures, is obtained by scaling the number of observed \({{\mathrm{Z}} _1+\ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}\) events by the misidentification probability for each lepton failing the selection. The procedure is described in more detail in Ref. [54].
In addition to this reducible background, which contributes to approximately 1–2% of the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) events, the \({{{\mathrm{t}} {}{{\mathrm{t}}}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) and VVV processes with four prompt leptons are estimated from simulated samples to be around 1–1.5% of the expected \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell '}\) yield. The total background contributions to the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell '}\) signal regions are summarized in Sect. 8.
7 Systematic uncertainties
The major sources of systematic uncertainty and their effect on the measured cross sections are summarized in Table 1. The lepton identification, isolation, and track reconstruction efficiencies in simulation are corrected with scaling factors derived with a tag-and-probe method and applied as a function of lepton \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) and \(\eta \). To estimate the uncertainties associated with the tag-and-probe technique, the total yield is recomputed with the scaling factors varied up and down by the tag-and-probe fit uncertainties. The uncertainties associated with the lepton efficiency in the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell '}\) signal regions are 5% in the \({4{\mathrm{e}}}\), 3% in the \({2{\mathrm{e}} 2\mu }\), and 2% in the \(4\mu \) final states.
In both data and simulated event samples, trigger efficiencies are evaluated with a tag-and-probe technique. The ratio of the trigger efficiency estimated using data to the one estimated with simulation is applied to simulated events, and the size of the resulting change in the expected yield is taken as the uncertainty in the determination of the trigger efficiency. This uncertainty is around 1–2% of the final estimated yield.
The largest uncertainty in the estimated background yield arises from differences in sample composition between the \({{\mathrm{Z}} +\ell _\text {candidate}}\) control sample used to calculate the lepton misidentification probability and the \({{\mathrm{Z}} +\ell ^+\ell ^-}\) control sample. An additional uncertainty arises from the limited number of events in the \({{\mathrm{Z}} +\ell _\text {candidate}}\) sample. A systematic uncertainty of 40% is applied to the lepton misidentification probability to cover both effects. Its impact varies by channel, but is of the order of 1% of the total expected yield.
The modeling of pileup relies on the total inelastic \({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \) cross Sect. [55]. The pileup uncertainty is evaluated by varying this cross section up and down by 5%.
Uncertainties because of factorization (\(\mu _\mathrm {F}\)) and renormalization (\(\mu _\mathrm {R}\)) scale choices on the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell '}\) acceptance are evaluated with powheg+mcfm by varying \(\mu _\mathrm {F}\) and \(\mu _\mathrm {R}\) up and down by a factor of two with respect to the default values \({\mu _\mathrm {F} = \mu _\mathrm {R} = m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\), where \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) is the invariant mass of the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) system. All combinations are considered except those in which \(\mu _\mathrm {F}\) and \(\mu _\mathrm {R}\) differ by a factor of four. Parametric uncertainties (PDF+\(\alpha _\mathrm {S} \)) are evaluated according to the PDF4LHC prescription [56] in the acceptance calculation, and with NNPDF3.0 [57] in the cross section calculations. An additional theoretical uncertainty arises from scaling the powheg \({{\mathrm{q}} {{\mathrm{q}}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) simulated sample from its NLO cross section to the NNLO prediction, and the mcfm \({{\mathrm{g}} {\mathrm{g}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) samples from their LO cross sections to the NLO predictions. The change in the acceptance corresponding to this scaling procedure is about 1%.
The uncertainty in the integrated luminosity of the data samples is 2.5% (2016) [58], 2.3% (2017) [59], and 2.5% (2018) [60]. Since the luminosity uncertainty contains a significant uncorrelated portion, the relative luminosity uncertainty of the whole sample is smaller than for each individual year.
The same uncertainties are valid for both total and differential cross section measurements, but for the differential one there is also an additional uncertainty related to the unfolding procedure described in Sect. 9. It is estimated using MadGraph 5_amc@nlo instead of powheg+mcfm in unfolding. The unfolding uncertainty is included in the results and plots together with other uncertainites, but its effect is small compared to the statistical uncertainties of the measurement.
8 Cross section measurement
The \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(\eta \) distributions for individual leptons are shown in Fig. 1. Both distributions contain four leptons per event. The invariant mass of the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) system, the individual mass of reconstructed Z boson candidates in the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) events, and their corresponding \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) distributions are shown in Fig. 2. The last bins in \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) and all \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) distributions contain events from the overflow. The \({m_{\mathrm{Z}}}\) and Z \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) distributions contain two Z candidates for each event. These distributions are shown for data and simulated events to demonstrate comparisons with SM expectations. The signal expectations include contributions from \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) production shown separately for \({{\mathrm{q}} {{\mathrm{q}}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\), \({{\mathrm{g}} {\mathrm{g}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\), and EW \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) processes in all figures and combined as “Signal” in Table 2. The EW \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) production contributes to approximately 1% of the total number of \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) events.
The irreducible background, which amounts to 1–1.5% of the total \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) yield, and reducible background are combined as “Background” in Table 2. The total background in this analysis is \(\approx 3\%\). The estimated yields agree well with the measured ones. The individual distributions are well described, except the \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) distribution at high values of invariant masses and the \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\mathrm{Z}}}\) distribution at high values of \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \). These are regions where the EW corrections may become important and will be discussed later in Sect. 10.
The measured yields are used to evaluate the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) production cross section in the fiducial phase space. The signal acceptance is evaluated from simulation and corrected for each individual lepton flavor in bins of \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) and \(\eta \) using factors obtained with the tag-and-probe technique. To include all final states in the cross section calculation, a simultaneous fit to the number of observed events in all decay channels is performed. The likelihood is composed as a combination of individual channel likelihoods for the signal and background hypotheses with the statistical and systematic uncertainties treated as scaling nuisance parameters. The combination of various data-taking periods is performed treating the theoretical uncertainties as fully correlated among various periods, whereas the experimental uncertainties are either correlated or uncorrelated, depending on their origin.
The fiducial phase space for the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell '}\) cross section measurement is defined as: \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell _1} > 20\,\text {GeV}}\), \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell _2} > 10\,\text {GeV}}\), \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell _{3,4}} > 5\,\text {GeV}}\), \({|\eta ^{\ell } | < 2.5}\), \({m_{2\ell } > 4\,\text {GeV}}\) (any opposite-sign same-flavor pair), \({60< m_{{\mathrm{Z}} _1}, m_{{\mathrm{Z}} _2} < 120\,\text {GeV}}\). The generator-level leptons used for the fiducial cross section calculation are “dressed” by adding the momenta of generator-level photons within \({\varDelta R\left( \ell ,\gamma \right) < 0.1}\) from the lepton momenta directions.
The measured \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) fiducial cross section presented in Table 3 can be compared to \(39.3^{+0.8}_{-0.7} \pm 0.6\text { fb} \) calculated with powheg+mcfm using the same settings as the simulated samples with K factors applied. The first uncertainty corresponds to the factorization and renormalization scales and the second to PDF, as described above. The powheg calculations used dynamic factorization and renormalization scales \({\mu _\mathrm {F} = \mu _\mathrm {R} = m_{2\ell 2\ell '}}\), whereas the contribution from mcfm is computed with dynamic scales \({\mu _\mathrm {F} = \mu _\mathrm {R} = 0.5 m_{2\ell 2\ell '}}\). It can also be compared to the prediction from Matrix v2.0.0_beta1 of \(38.0^{+1.1}_{-1.0}\). The uncertainty in the Matrix prediction includes only the uncertainty due to the variation of \(\mu _\mathrm {F}\) and \(\mu _\mathrm {R}\).
The total \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) production cross section for both dileptons produced in the mass range 60–120\(\,\text {GeV}\) and \({m_{\ell ^+\ell ^{\prime -}} > 4\,\text {GeV}}\) is presented in Table 4. The nominal branching fraction \({\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^+\ell ^-) = 0.03366}\) is used [53]. The measured total cross section can be compared to the theoretical value of \(16.9^{+0.6}_{-0.5} \pm 0.2\text { pb} \), calculated from powheg+mcfm with the same settings that is used for \({\sigma _{\mathrm {fid}} ({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \rightarrow 2\ell 2\ell ')}\). It can also be compared to \(16.5^{+0.6}_{-0.5}\) \(\text { pb}\), calculated with Matrix v2.0.0_beta1, or \(15.0^{+0.7}_{-0.6} \pm 0.2\) \(\text { pb}\), calculated with mcfm at NLO in QCD with additional contributions from LO \({{\mathrm{g}} {\mathrm{g}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) diagrams and with the NLO NNPDF3.0 PDF set and fixed factorization and renormalization scales set to \({\mu _\mathrm {F} = \mu _\mathrm {R} = m_{{\mathrm{Z}}}}\).
The total \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) cross section is shown in Fig. 3 as a function of the \({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \) center-of-mass energy. Results from CMS [4, 5] and ATLAS [9, 10, 14] are compared to predictions from Matrix v2.0.0_beta1 and mcfm. The uncertainties are statistical (inner bars) and statistical and systematic combined, as obtained from the fit (outer bars). The band around the Matrix predictions reflects scale uncertainties, while the band around the mcfm predictions reflects both scale and PDF uncertainties.
9 Differential cross sections
The differential distributions normalized to the fiducial cross sections are presented in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 for the combination of the \({4{\mathrm{e}}}\), \({2{\mathrm{e}} 2{\upmu }}\), and \({4{\upmu }}\) decay channels using the whole data sample. The fiducial cross section definition includes \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\ell }}\) and \({|\eta ^{\ell } |}\) selections on each lepton, and the 60–120\(\,\text {GeV}\) mass requirement, as described in Sect. 4. Figure 4 shows the differential cross sections in bins of \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) for: (left) all leptons in the event, (right) both \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) bosons in the event, and in Fig. 5 (left) for the \(p_{\mathrm {T}} \) of the \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) system. Figure 5 (right) shows the normalized \({\mathrm{d}\sigma /\mathrm{d}m_{{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}}\) distribution. All \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) distributions include overflow in the last bin. Figure 6 shows the angular correlations between \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) bosons. The data are corrected for background contributions and unfolded for detector effects using a matrix inversion method without regularization as described in Ref. [61], and compared with the theoretical predictions from powheg+mcfm, MadGraph 5_amc@nlo+mcfm and Matrix. The distributions include both Z boson candidates or all four leptons, where applicable, and are normalized to the numbers of objects in the event and to the fiducial cross section. The bottom part of each plot shows the ratio of the measured to the predicted values. The bin sizes are chosen according to the resolution of the relevant variables, trying also to keep the statistical uncertainties at a similar level for all the bins.
The distributions predicted by powheg+mcfm and MadGraph 5_amc@nlo+mcfm agree well with data, except for \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\). This distribution shows a small overestimate in the cross section at high invariant masses. The Matrix predictions describe this region better, which can be explained by the presence of the EW corrections in the Matrix calculations. The effect of EW corrections is in detail discussed in Ref. [44] and can reach 20–30% for \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} } = 1 \,\text {TeV}}\). On the other hand, the Matrix predictions show some deviation from the measurements as a function of \({p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) and for the azimuthal separation between the two Z bosons, which is not observed for powheg+mcfm and MadGraph 5_amc@nlo+mcfm predictions.
10 Limits on anomalous triple gauge couplings
The presence of aTGCs is expected to increase the event yield at high four-lepton masses. Figure 7 presents the distribution of the four-lepton reconstructed mass for the combined \({4{\mathrm{e}}}\), \({2{\mathrm{e}} 2{\upmu }}\), and \({4{\upmu }}\) channels, for the SM and an example of nonzero aTGC value with \(f_4^\gamma =0\), and \({f_4^{\mathrm{Z}} =0.0015}\). Limits on aTGCs are derived from fits to this distribution. The shaded histograms represent the SM predictions as described in the previous sections and the dashed curve shows the sherpa prediction. The sherpa SM predictions are normalized to the powheg+mcfm predictions including K factors and agree well with them in shape, as shown in Fig. 7. As a cross-check of the procedure, the sherpa SM distribution was also corrected bin-by-bin to the powheg+mcfm distribution, no difference was observed in the extracted limits. The presence of aTGC contribution increases the expected event yields at masses above 1300\(\,\text {GeV}\). In the fit, described below, this region is subdivided into two bins: 1300–2000\(\,\text {GeV}\) and above 2000\(\,\text {GeV}\). Typically 60–70% of the aTGC events have masses above 2000\(\,\text {GeV}\), whereas the expected SM contribution is approximately 2.4 and 0.2 events in the 1300–2000\(\,\text {GeV}\) and above 2000\(\,\text {GeV}\) bins, respectively.
The invariant mass distributions are interpolated from those obtained from the sherpa simulation for different values of the anomalous couplings in the range between 0 and 0.03. For each distribution, only one or two couplings are varied while all others are set to zero, thus creating a grid of points in the \({(f_{4}^{\mathrm{Z}}, f_{4}^\gamma )}\) and \({(f_{5}^{\mathrm{Z}}, f_{5}^\gamma )}\) parameter planes and the corresponding invariant mass distributions. In each \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) bin, expected signal values are interpolated between the two-dimensional grid points using a second-order polynomial, since the cross section for the signal depends quadratically on the coupling parameters. A simultaneous fit to the values of aTGCs is performed for all lepton channels, see Ref. [62] for details. A profile likelihood method [53], Wald Gaussian approximation, and Wilks theorem [63] are used to derive one-(1D) and two-dimensional limits at 68 and 95% confidence levels (\(\text {CL}\)) on each of the aTGC parameters and combination of two of them, while all other parameters are set to their SM values. All systematic uncertainties are included by varying the number of expected signal and background events within their uncertainties. An additional 10% uncertainty is applied on the predictions of the SM and aTGC models to account for possible differences between model predictions and the interpolation used in the fit. No form factor [64] is used when deriving the limits; the results assume that the energy scale of new physics is very high. The constraints on anomalous couplings are displayed in Fig. 8. The curves indicate 68 and 95% \(\text {CL}\) contours; the dots indicate where the likelihoods reach their maximum. Coupling values outside the contours are excluded at the corresponding \(\text {CL}\). The crosses in the middle represent the observed 1D limits that are summarized in Table 5. The sensitivity is dominated by the statistical uncertainties.
Complete one-loop EW corrections to massive vector boson pair production [66, 67] were applied as a cross-check. The EW corrections to the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) production cause the \({\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) mass spectrum to fall more rapidly at large masses. In addition, the overall cross section decreases by about 4%. The effect of NLO EW corrections is estimated by reweighting the SM sherpa sample as a function of \({m_{{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }}\) using weights derivedfrom the calculations described in Ref. [66]. This reweighting improves the expected limits by about 4–6%, whereas there is no effect on the observed limits. This is expected, since only the SM contribution is subject to the EW corrections; they are not applied on aTGCs. The limits are driven by the high mass tail above 1300 GeV. In this region the aTGC signal is much larger than the SM, and therefore the EW correction on the SM part has a very small effect on the predictions of the SM+aTGC model. This correction is much smaller than the uncertainty we apply in the fit procedure.
These results can be also expressed in terms of EFT parameters. The numerical relations between aTGCs and EFT parameters are given in Ref. [65]. The expected and measured limits in terms of EFT are presented in Table 5.
11 Summary
Four-lepton final states have been studied in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\,\text {TeV} \) with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 137\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\), collected during 2016–2018. Themeasured \({{\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} }\) total cross section is \(\sigma _{\text {tot}} ( {\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} ) = 17.4 \pm 0.3 \,\text {(stat)} \pm 0.5 \,\text {(syst)} \pm 0.4 \,\text {(theo)} \pm 0.3 \,\text {(lumi)} \text { pb} \), where the \({{\mathrm{Z}}}\) boson masses are in the range \(60< m_{{\mathrm{Z}}} < 120\,\text {GeV} \). The results agree with the SM predictions, discussed in Sect. 8. The differential cross sections also agree well with the SM predictions. Improved limits on anomalous \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \gamma }\) triple gauge couplings are established. These are the most stringent limits to date on anomalous \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}}}\) and \({{\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \gamma }\) triple gauge couplings and they improve the previous strictest results from CMS by \(\approx 30\)–40%.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: Release and preservation of data used by the CMS Collaboration as the basis for publications is guided by the CMS policy as written in its document “CMS data preservation, re-use and open access policy” (https://cms-docdb.cern.ch/cgi-bin/PublicDocDB/RetrieveFile?docid=6032filename=CMSDataPolicyV1.2.pdf&version=2)].
References
K. Hagiwara, R.D. Peccei, D. Zeppenfeld, Probing the weak boson sector in \(\text{ e}^{+}\text{ e}^{-} \rightarrow \text{ W}^{+}\text{ W}^{-}\). Nucl. Phys. B 282, 253 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(87)90685-7
G.J. Gounaris, J. Layssac, F.M. Renard, New and standard physics contributions to anomalous Z and \(\gamma \) self-couplings. Phys. Rev. D 62, 073013 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.073013. arXiv:hep-ph/0003143
C. Degrande et al., Effective field theory: a modern approach to anomalous couplings. Ann. Phys. 335, 21 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2013.04.016. arXiv:1205.4231
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the ZZ production cross section and search for anomalous couplings in \(2\ell 2\ell ^{\prime }\) final states in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\text{ TeV }\). JHEP 01, 063 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2013)063. arXiv:1211.4890
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the \(\text{ pp } \rightarrow \text{ ZZ }\) production cross section and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings in four-lepton final states at \(\sqrt{s}=8\text{ TeV }\). Phys. Lett. B 740, 250 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.010. arXiv:1406.0113. Corrigenum:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.11.059
CMS Collaboration, Measurements of the ZZ production cross sections in the \(2\ell 2\nu \) channel in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 7\) and \(8\text{ TeV }\) and combined constraints on triple gauge couplings. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 511 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3706-0. arXiv:1503.05467
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the ZZ production cross section and \(\text{ Z } \rightarrow \ell ^+\ell ^-\ell ^{\prime +}\ell ^{\prime -}\) branching fraction in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\text{ TeV }\). Phys. Lett. B 763, 280 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.054. arXiv:1607.08834
CMS Collaboration, Measurements of the \(\text{ p }\text{ p }\rightarrow \text{ Z }\text{ Z }\) production cross section and the \(\text{ Z }\rightarrow 4\ell \) branching fraction, and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\,\text{ TeV } \). Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 165 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5567-9. arXiv:1709.08601. Erratum: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5769-1
ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of ZZ production in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\text{ TeV }\) and limits on anomalous \(\text{ ZZ }\text{ Z }\) and \(\text{ ZZ }\gamma \) couplings with the ATLAS detector. JHEP03 128 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2013)128. arXiv:1211.6096
ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of four-lepton production in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=8\text{ TeV }\) with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B 753, 552 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.048. arXiv:1509.07844
ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the ZZ production cross section in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\,\text{ TeV }\) with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 101801 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.101801. arXiv:1512.05314
ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the four-lepton invariant mass spectrum in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 04, 048 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)048. arXiv:1902.05892
ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of \(ZZ\) production in the \(\ell \ell \nu \nu \) final state with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 10, 127 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2019)127. arXiv:1905.07163
ATLAS Collaboration, \(ZZ \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\ell ^{\prime +}\ell ^{\prime -}\) cross-section measurements and search for anomalous triple gauge couplings in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 97, 032005 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.032005. arXiv:1709.07703
F. Cascioli et al., ZZ production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD. Phys. Lett. B 735, 311 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.056. arXiv:1405.2219
M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, D. Rathlev, ZZ production at the LHC: fiducial cross sections and distributions in NNLO QCD. Phys. Lett. B 750, 407 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.09.055. arXiv:1507.06257
S. Kallweit, M. Wiesemann, ZZ production at the LHC: NNLO predictions for \(2\ell 2\nu \) and \(4\ell \) signatures. Phys. Lett. B 786, 382 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10.016. rXiv:1806.05941
CMS Collaboration, The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. JINST 3, S08004 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004
CMS Collaboration, Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\,\text{ TeV }\). JINST 10, P06005 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005. arXiv:1502.02701
CMS Collaboration, Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at \(\sqrt{s}=7\,\text{ TeV }\). JINST 7, P10002 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/7/10/P10002. arXiv:1206.4071
CMS Collaboration, Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}= 13\) TeV. JINST 13, P06015 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015. arXiv:1804.04528
CMS Collaboration, The CMS trigger system. JINST 12, P01020 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020. arXiv:1609.02366
T. Sjöstrand et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2. Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024. arXiv:1410.3012
S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG box. JHEP 06, 043 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043. arXiv:1002.2581
CMS Collaboration, Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x. arXiv:1512.00815
NNPDF Collaboration, Parton distributions from high-precision collider data. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 663 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5. arXiv:1706.00428
CMS Collaboration, Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4. arXiv:1903.12179
S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, NLO vector-boson production matched with shower in POWHEG. JHEP 07, 060 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/060. arXiv:0805.4802
P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms. JHEP 11, 040 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040. arXiv:hep-ph/0409146
S. Frixione, P. Nason, C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method. JHEP 11, 070 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070. arXiv:0709.2092
T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, G. Zanderighi, \(\text{ W}^+\text{ W}^-\), \(\text{ W }\text{ Z }\) and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX. JHEP 11, 078 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2011)078. arXiv:1107.5051
J.M. Campbell, R.K. Ellis, MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 10, 205 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.011. arXiv:1007.3492
Y. Gao et al., Spin determination of single-produced resonances at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D 81, 075022 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.075022. arXiv:1001.3396
S. Bolognesi et al., Spin and parity of a single-produced resonance at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 86, 095031 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.095031. arXiv:1208.4018
I. Anderson et al., Constraining anomalous HVV interactions at proton and lepton colliders. Phys. Rev. D 89, 035007 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.035007. arXiv:1309.4819
F. Caola, K. Melnikov, R. Röntsch, L. Tancredi, QCD corrections to ZZ production in gluon fusion at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 92, 094028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094028. arXiv:1509.06734
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, 079 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079. arXiv:1405.0301
R. Frederix, S. Frixione, Merging meets matching in MC@NLO. JHEP 12, 061 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061. arXiv:1209.6215
T. Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1. JHEP 02, 007 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/02/007. arXiv:0811.4622
GEANT4 Collaboration, GEANT4–a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 506, 250 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, M. Wiesemann, Fully differential NNLO computations with Matrix. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 537 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5771-7. arXiv:1711.06631
F. Buccioni et al., Openloops 2. Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 866 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7306-2. arXiv:1907.1307
T. Gehrmann, A. von Manteuffel, L. Tancredi, The two-loop helicity amplitudes for \({\text{ q }}\overline{\text{ q }}^{\prime }\rightarrow \text{ V}_1\text{ V}_2\rightarrow 4\) leptons. JHEP 09, 128 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep09(2015)128. arXiv:1503.04812
M. Grazzini et al., NNLO QCD + NLO EW with Matrix + OpenLoops: precise predictions for vector–boson pair production. JHEP 02, 087 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep02(2020)087. arXiv:1912.00068
V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. Hartland, J. Rojo, Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global pdf analysis. Sci. Post Phys. 5, 008 (2018). https://doi.org/10.21468/scipostphys.5.1.008. arXiv:1712.07053
M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, M. Wiesemann, J.Y. Yook, ZZ production at the LHC: NLO QCD corrections to the loop-induced gluon fusion channel. JHEP 03, 070 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep03(2019)070. arXiv:1811.09593
CMS Collaboration, Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector. JINST 12, P10003 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003. arXiv:1706.04965
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The anti-\(k_{{\rm T}}\) jet clustering algorithm. JHEP 04, 063 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063. arXiv:0802.1189
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2. arXiv:1111.6097
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Pileup subtraction using jet areas. Phys. Lett. B 659, 119 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077. arXiv:0707.1378
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the inclusive W and Z production cross sections in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\,\text{ TeV }\). JHEP 10, 132 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2011)132. arXiv:1107.4789
CMS Collaboration, Measurements of properties of the Higgs boson decaying into the four-lepton final state in pp collisions at \( \sqrt{s}=13 \) TeV. JHEP 11, 047 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)047. arXiv:1706.09936
Particle Data Group, M. Tanabashi et al., Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the properties of a Higgs boson in the four-lepton final state. Phys. Rev. D 89, 092007 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.092007. arXiv:1312.5353
CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the inelastic proton–proton cross section at \( \sqrt{s}=13 \) TeV. JHEP 07, 161 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2018)161. arXiv:1802.02613
J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC run II. J. Phys. G 43, 023001 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/2/023001. arXiv:1510.03865
NNPDF Collaboration, Parton distributions for the LHC run II. JHEP 04, 040 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040. arXiv:1410.8849
CMS Collaboration, CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data-taking period. CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 (2017)
CMS Collaboration, CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at \(\sqrt{s} = 13~\text{ TeV }\). CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 (2018)
CMS Collaboration, CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at \(\sqrt{s} = 13~\text{ TeV }\). CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 (2019)
T. Adye, Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold, in Proceedings, PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding, H. Prosper and L. Lyons, eds., p. 313, CERN. Geneva, Switzerland, 17–20 January, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2011-006.313. arXiv:1105.1160
ATLAS, CMS, and the LHC Higgs Combinaiton Group Collaboration, Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011. Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-Pub-2011-11, CERN (2011)
G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0. arXiv:1007.1727. (Erratum: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z)
U. Baur, D.L. Rainwater, Probing neutral gauge boson selfinteractions in \(ZZ\) production at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D 62, 113011 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.62.113011. arXiv:hep-ph/0008063
C. Degrande, A basis of dimension-eight operators for anomalous neutral triple gauge boson interactions. JHEP 02, 101 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2014)101. arXiv:1308.6323
A. Bierweiler, T. Kasprzik, J.H. Kuhn, Vector–boson pair production at the LHC to \(\cal{O}(\alpha ^3)\) accuracy. JHEP 12, 071 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2013)071. arXiv:1305.5402
J. Baglio, L.D. Ninh, M.M. Weber, Massive gauge boson pair production at the LHC: a next-to-leading order story. Phys. Rev. D 88, 113005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.113005. arXiv:1307.4331
Acknowledgements
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RIF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA). ndividuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z191100007219010; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe” – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, project no. 02.a03.21.0005 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Kavli Foundation; the Nvidia Corporation; the SuperMicro Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3
About this article
Cite this article
Sirunyan, A.M., Tumasyan, A., Adam, W. et al. Measurements of \({\mathrm{p}} {\mathrm{p}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{Z}} {\mathrm{Z}} \) production cross sections and constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\,\text {TeV} \). Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 200 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08817-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08817-8