Inclusive cross section predictions up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured production cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ at QCD NLO accuracy from MCFM using different PDF sets

Predictions for the cross sections ratio $\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ / $\sigma(W^- + c)$ up to QCD NNLO accuracy using the NNPDF3.1 PDF set

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the particle level.

Measured diferential cross sections $\sigma(W^- + c) + \sigma(W^+ + \overline{c})$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay, unfolded to the parton level.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Relative uncertainties on the measured fractional differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured fractional differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ cross section measurement.

Measured absolute differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Measured fractional differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Relative uncertainties on the measured absolute differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Relative uncertainties on the measured fractional differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured fractional differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $\eta^{\gamma}$ cross section measurement.

Measured absolute differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Measured fractional differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Relative uncertainties on the measured absolute differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Relative uncertainties on the measured fractional differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured fractional differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $\Delta R(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section measurement.

Measured absolute differential $\Delta\eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Measured fractional differential $\Delta\eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Relative uncertainties on the measured absolute differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Relative uncertainties on the measured fractional differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured fractional differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section measurement.

Measured absolute differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Measured fractional differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Relative uncertainties on the measured absolute differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section.

Relative uncertainties on the measured fractional differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section.

Correlation matrix for the measured fractional differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}$ cross section measurement.

Measured absolute differential $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ cross section. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ cross section measurement.

Relative uncertainties on the measured absolute differential $N_{\mathrm{jets}}$ cross section.

Measured absolute differential $\Delta\eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Measured fractional differential $\Delta\eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8, GENEVA, MATRIX and MCFM predictions. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Relative uncertainties on the measured absolute differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Relative uncertainties on the measured fractional differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Correlation matrix for the measured fractional differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $\Delta \eta(\ell,\gamma)$ cross section measurement. Requirements of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{cluster}}>150\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and a veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are applied in addition to the baseline selection.

Fiducial cross section scaling terms as a function of $C_{3W}$ in all $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ bins. Values are given relative to the SM prediction.

Scans of the profile likelihood test statistic $q$ as a function of $C_{3W}$, given with and without the pure BSM term.

Scans of the profile likelihood test statistic $q$ as a function of $C_{3W}$, given with and without the pure BSM term.

Best-fit values of $C_{3W}$ and corresponding 95% CL confidence intervals as a function of the maximum $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ bin included in the fit, with and without the pure BSM term.

Best-fit values of $C_{3W}$ and corresponding 95% CL confidence intervals as a function of the maximum $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ bin included in the fit, with and without the binning in $|\phi_{f}|$.

Response matrix from the fiducial to the reconstructed bins of the differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ cross section measurement.

Measured double-differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO prediction. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 80\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$. A veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ is also applied for this result.

Measured double-differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO prediction. This table gives the entries for the $(0,\pi/6)$ slice. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 80\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$. A veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ is also applied for this result.

Measured double-differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO prediction. This table gives the entries for the $(\pi/6,\pi/3)$ slice. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 80\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$. A veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ is also applied for this result.

Measured double-differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ cross section, compared to the MG5_aMC+PY8 NLO prediction. This table gives the entries for the $(\pi/3,\pi/2)$ slice. The differential cross sections $\sigma_{j}(\mathrm{pp}\rightarrow\mathrm{W}^{\pm}\gamma\rightarrow\ell^{\pm}\nu\gamma)$, where $\ell$ denotes all three lepton flavors, are measured in the following fiducial region: $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\ell} > 80\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\ell}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} > 150\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta^{\gamma}| < 2.5$, $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 40\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) > 0.7$. The leptons are dressed by adding the four-momenta of any photons with $\Delta R(\ell, \gamma) < 0.1$ to the four-momentum of the lepton. A smooth-cone photon isolation is also applied, with parameters $\delta_{0}=0.4$, $\epsilon=1.0$, and $n=1$. A veto on the presence of any jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ is also applied for this result.

Correlation matrix for the measured absolute differential $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma} \times |\phi_{f}|$ cross section.

Measured diferential cross sections as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the absolute value of the pseudorapidity of the lepton from the W decay.

Measured diferential cross sections ratio $R=\sigma(W^+ + \overline{c}) / \sigma(W^- + c)$ as a function of the transverse momentum of the lepton from the W decay.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++),and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different KATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), and POWHEG(PW) models

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin, distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY and distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to differentKATIE(KT), MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the pT spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the leading jet from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the sub-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the third-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the eta spectrum for the fourth-leading from data with different SPS+DPS KATIE( KT) and PYTHIA8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions havebeen normalized to regions where a reduced DPS sensitivity is expected.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models. All distributions have been normalized to regions where a reduced DPS contribution is expected.

The DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample compared to predictions from the pure DPS sample in PYTHIA 8 (P8) and KATIE (KT). The distributions are normalized to unity.

The results of the template fit for the POWHEG (PW) NLO 2 -> 2 model without the hard MPI removed. As the DeltaS distribution obtained from the mixed data sample carries a statistical and systematic uncertainty, so does the total fitted sample.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different PYTHIA8 (P8),HERWIG++ (H++), and HERWIG7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different PYTHIA 8 (P8), HERWIG ++ (H++), and HERWIG 7 (H7) tunes.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaS distribution from data to different KATIE(KT),MADGRAPH5aMC@NLO(MG5), andPOWHEG(PW) implementations.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiSoft distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaPhiMin distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaY distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the phi_ij distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the Deltap_{T,Soft} distribution from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.

Comparison of the DeltaS distributions from data to different SPS+DPS KATIE (KT) and PYTHIA 8 (P8) models.