Table 2.

The quality of the description (as measured by the value of ${\mathit{\chi }}^2$) of the LHC $W,Z$ data before and after they are included in the global NLO and NNLO fits. We also show for comparison the ${\mathit{\chi }}^2$ values obtained in the CPdeut fit of the NLO MMSTWW analysis [11], which did not include LHC data

Data set	$N_{\mathrm{pts}}$	MMSTWW (Ref. [11])	MMHT2014 (no LHC)	MMHT2014 (with LHC)
NLO
ATLAS $W^{+},W^{-},Z$	30	47	44	38
CMS $W$ asymm $p_T>35\mathrm{G}eV$	11	9	16	7
CMS asymm $p_T>25\mathrm{G}eV,30\mathrm{G}eV$	24	9	17	8
LHCb $Z\to e^{+}{e}^{-}$	9	13	13	13
LHCb $W$ asymm $p_T>20\mathrm{G}eV$	10	12	14	12
CMS $Z\to e^{+}{e}^{-}$	35	21	22	19
ATLAS high-mass Drell–Yan	13	20	20	21
CMS double-diff. Drell–Yan	132	385	396	372
NNLO
ATLAS $W^{+},W^{-},Z$	30	72	53	39
CMS $W$ asymm $p_T>35\mathrm{G}eV$	11	18	15	8
CMS asymm $p_T>25,30\mathrm{G}eV$	24	18	17	9
LHCb $Z\to e^{+}{e}^{-}$	9	23	22	21
LHCb $W$ asymm $p_T>20\mathrm{G}eV$	10	24	21	18
CMS $Z\to e^{+}{e}^{-}$	35	30	24	22
ATLAS high-mass Drell–Yan	13	18	16	17
CMS double-diff. Drell–Yan	132	159	151	150