Normalized differential distributions of the $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{tt})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Normalized differential distributions of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Normalized differential distributions of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Normalized differential distributions of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Absolute differential distributions of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Normalized differential distributions of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Absolute differential distributions of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Normalized differential distributions of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Absolute differential distributions of the ratio between the cross sections of $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ and $\mathrm{tt}$, as a function of the leading top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process.

Absolute differential distributions of the ratio between the cross sections of $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ and $\mathrm{tt}$, as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$. The nominal MC prediction used to compare the experimental results to is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and Madgraph5 at LO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The alternative prediction is obtained with Madgraph5 at NLO in QCD for photons from the production part of the process and a POWHEG+Pythia $\mathrm{tt}$ simulation at NLO in QCD for photons from the decay part of the process. The theory predictions are computed at fixed order, at NLO in QCD, as described in Section 9.2 of the paper.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading top quark $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the min. $\Delta R (\gamma,\mathrm{t})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $m(\mathrm{tt})$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the photon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential cross section as a function of the $\Delta \phi (\ell,\ell)$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading top $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading top $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the total uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Correlation matrix of the statistical uncertainty in the absolute differential $\mathrm{tt\gamma}$ / $\mathrm{tt}$ cross section ratio as a function of the leading lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$.

Observed (black markers) and expected distributions of number of jets after event selection. The hatched (grey) areas denote the systematic (total) uncertainties in the expected yields. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between observed and expected distributions. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range. The entry Background corresponds to the sum of all the SM predictions.

Observed (black markers) and expected distributions of number of b tagged jets after event selection. The hatched (grey) areas denote the systematic (total) uncertainties in the expected yields. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between observed and expected distributions. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range. The entry Background corresponds to the sum of all the SM predictions.

Difference between $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ for signal events. The mean difference between the generated and the $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ per bin is shown as solid line. The results for $p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss}$ corrected by the DNN regression (light blue), derived with the PUPPI algorithm (red), and the PF algorithm (orange) are shown. A simulated sample for the 2018 data-taking period is used.

Difference between $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ for signal events. The dashed line shows the standard deviation $\sigma$, which corresponds to the resolution of the $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ difference. The results for $p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss}$ corrected by the DNN regression (light blue), derived with the PUPPI algorithm (red), and the PF algorithm (orange) are shown. A simulated sample for the 2018 data-taking period is used.

Difference between $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ as a function of the number of primary vertices for signal events. The mean difference between the generated and the $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ per bin is shown as solid line. The results for $p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss}$ corrected by the DNN regression (light blue), derived with the PUPPI algorithm (red), and the PF algorithm (orange) are shown. A simulated sample for the 2018 data-taking period is used.

Difference between $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ for signal events. The dashed line shows the standard deviation $\sigma$, which corresponds to the resolution of the $p_{\mathrm{T,gen.}}^\text{miss}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T,rec.}}^\text{miss}$ difference. The results for $p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss}$ corrected by the DNN regression (light blue), derived with the PUPPI algorithm (red), and the PF algorithm (orange) are shown. A simulated sample for the 2018 data-taking period is used.

Results of the $\chi^{2}$ tests for the absolute and normalized differential cross section measurements for each of the predictions. The $\chi^{2}$ values including uncertainties on the predictions are given in parentheses in the table in the paper and in a separate column here.

The p-value of the $\chi^{2}$ tests for the absolute and normalized cross section measurements for each of the predictions. The resulting p-values including uncertainties on the predictions are given in parentheses in the table in the paper and in a separate column here.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from experimental uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from theory uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from experimental uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from theory uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from experimental uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0<$\phi$<0.56. Each group of four bins corresponds to $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ bins, and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ bin edges are indicated by vertical solid lines. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from experimental uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.56<$\phi$<1.08. Each group of four bins corresponds to $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ bins, and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ bin edges are indicated by vertical solid lines. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from experimental uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 1.08<$\phi$<3.14. Each group of four bins corresponds to $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ bins, and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ bin edges are indicated by vertical solid lines. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from theory uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0<$\phi$<0.56. Each group of four bins corresponds to $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ bins, and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ bin edges are indicated by vertical solid lines. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from theory uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.56<$\phi$<1.08. Each group of four bins corresponds to $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ bins, and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ bin edges are indicated by vertical solid lines. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Breakdown of the relative contribution from theory uncertainties in the differential cross section measurement as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 1.08<$\phi$<3.14. Each group of four bins corresponds to $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ bins, and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ bin edges are indicated by vertical solid lines. The statistical uncertainty (dark grey) takes the size of the available simulated samples and the recorded data into account. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated distributions of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated distributions of $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated two-dimensional distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0<$\phi$<0.28 is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated two-dimensional distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.28<$\phi$<0.56 is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated two-dimensional distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.56<$\phi$<0.82 is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated two-dimensional distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.82<$\phi$<1.08 is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated two-dimensional distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 1.08<$\phi$<2.14 is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

The observed (black markers) and simulated two-dimensional distribution of $p_{\mathrm{T,DNN}}^\text{miss}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T, DNN}}^{\text{miss}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 2.14<$\phi$<3.2 is shown. Events from all data-taking periods and all channels are combined. The hatched (grey) areas indicate the systematic (total) uncertainty in the simulation. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of observed data to the expectation from MC simulation in each bin. The last bin includes all events above the plotted range.

Result of the closure test based on simulation accounting for potential BSM contributions based on a top squark pair production scenario with a stop mass of 525 GeV and a neutralino mass of 350 GeV. The potential BSM contribution is scaled by a factor of ten. The test is performed for the $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ using the nominal (black), the regularized (orange), and the bin-by-bin unfolding (purple), based on all data-taking periods combined. The unfolded distributions are compared to the expected distribution (red) based on the sum of the nominal dileptonic $t\bar{t}$ signal sample and BSM signal with the corresponding $\chi^2/\text{ndf}$ values given in the legend in square brackets. The distribution used for the response matrix, is shown in blue. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty. The lower part shows the ratios between the unfolded and the expected distributions.

Result of the closure test based on simulation. The potential BSM contribution is scaled by a factor of ten. The test is performed for the 2D measurement of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ in the azimuthal angle range 0<$\phi$<0.56 using the nominal (black), the regularized (orange), and the bin-by-bin unfolding (purple), based on all data-taking periods combined. The unfolded distributions are compared to the expected distribution (red) based on the sum of the nominal dileptonic $t\bar{t}$ signal sample and BSM signal with the corresponding $\chi^2/\text{ndf}$ values given in the legend. The nominal distribution, used for the response matrix, is shown in blue. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty. The lower part shows the ratios between the unfolded and the expected distributions.

Result of the closure test based on simulation. The potential BSM contribution is scaled by a factor of ten. The test is performed for the 2D measurement of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ in the azimuthal angle range 0.56<$\phi$<1.08 using the nominal (black), the regularized (orange), and the bin-by-bin unfolding (purple), based on all data-taking periods combined. The unfolded distributions are compared to the expected distribution (red) based on the sum of the nominal dileptonic $t\bar{t}$ signal sample and BSM signal with the corresponding $\chi^2/\text{ndf}$ values given in the legend. The nominal distribution, used for the response matrix, is shown in blue. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty. The lower part shows the ratios between the unfolded and the expected distributions.

Result of the closure test based on simulation. The potential BSM contribution is scaled by a factor of ten. The test is performed for the 2D measurement of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ in the azimuthal angle range 1.08<$\phi$<3.14 using the nominal (black), the regularized (orange), and the bin-by-bin unfolding (purple), based on all data-taking periods combined. The unfolded distributions are compared to the expected distribution (red) based on the sum of the nominal dileptonic $t\bar{t}$ signal sample and BSM signal with the corresponding $\chi^2/\text{ndf}$ values given in the legend. The nominal distribution, used for the response matrix, is shown in blue. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty. The lower part shows the ratios between the unfolded and the expected distributions.

The measured differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The measured differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The measured two-dimensional differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0<$\phi$<0.56 is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The measured two-dimensional differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.56<$\phi$<1.08 is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The measured two-dimensional differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 1.08<$\phi$<3.14 is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The normalized measured differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The normalized measured differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The normalized measured two-dimensional differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0<$\phi$<0.56 is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The normalized measured two-dimensional differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 0.56<$\phi$<1.08 is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

The normalized measured two-dimensional differential signal cross section (black markers) as a function of $p_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu}$ and $\text{min}[\Delta\phi(\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\nu\nu},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\ell})]$ for the azimuthal angle range 1.08<$\phi$<3.14 is shown. The theoretical predictions from POWHEG+PYTHIA (dark red), POWHEG+HERWIG (orange), MC@NLO+PYTHIA (purple), and the fixed-order NLO (light blue) and NNLO (brown) calculations are compared to the measurement. The total (statistical) uncertainty in the measurement is shown as an orange (dark grey) band. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio between theoretical predictions and the measurement.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (both nominal and 'global') for all nuisance parameters in the W-like Z boson mass fit (flip odd/even events to choose muon charge), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (both nominal and 'global') for all nuisance parameters in the W-like Z boson mass fit (charge difference), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (only nominal) for all nuisance parameters in the Z boson mass fit (using dimuon mass), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

Postfit pulls, constraints, and impacts (only nominal) for all nuisance parameters in the W boson mass fit (helicity cross section fit), sorted by the absolute value of the nominal impact.

$d\sigma^{W}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Generator-level $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ distribution and uncertainty. The last column reports the result of a simultaneous fit to the single muon $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μ}, \mathit{\eta}^{μ}, \mathit{q}^{μ})$ distribution in $W$ boson decays and the dimuon $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution in $Z$ boson events. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{Z}/d|\mathit{y}|\ (pb)$: Unfolded measured $\mathit{y}^{Z}$ distribution compared with the generator-level predictions before the likelihood fit or after the W-like $\mathit{m}_{Z}$ fit or from the direct fit to the $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{Z}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Unfolded measured $\mathit{p}_{T}^{Z}$ distribution compared with the generator-level predictions before the likelihood fit or after the W-like $\mathit{m}_{Z}$ fit or from the direct fit to the $(\mathit{p}_{T}^{μμ},\mathit{y}^{μμ})$ distribution. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{W}/d\mathit{p}_{T}\ (pb\,/\,GeV)$: Generator-level $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ distribution and uncertainty, before and after running the helicity fit. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

$d\sigma^{W}/d|\mathit{y}|\ (pb)$: Generator-level $\mathit{y}^{Z}$ distribution and uncertainty, before and after running the helicity fit. The measured cross section in each bin is reported after dividing the value by the corresponding bin width.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ modeling), with the alternative measurements using different approaches to the $\mathit{p}_{T}^{W}$ modeling and its uncertainty. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from the CT18Z PDF set), with the alternative measurements using different PDFs and their uncertainty before the scaling procedure described in the paper text. The measured mass values are those reported in Table A.7 of the paper. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Comparison of the nominal $\mathit{m}_{W}$ measurement and its uncertainty (total or only from the CT18Z PDF set), with the alternative measurements using different PDFs and their uncertainty after the scaling procedure described in the paper text. The measured mass values are those reported in Table A.7 of the paper. The scale factors for the PDF uncertainties from each set are reported in Table A.3 of the paper. The first column reports the measured mass for each configuration, while the second one shows the difference between the measurement and the main result.

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $p_T$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the $|\eta|$ of the second-highest-$p_T$ jet

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the pseudorapidity difference between the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the two highest-$p_T$ jets in the event

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the on-shell ZZ region

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 0 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 1 jet, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with 2 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

Differential cross sections normalized to the fiducial cross section as a function of the invariant mass of the four-lepton system in events with at least 3 jets, in the full $m_{4l}$ range

The JEC, JER, and total systematic uncertainties in unfolded cross sections as functions of transverse momentum, for 1.5<|y|<2. The total systematic uncertainty includes also the luminosity, jet identification and trigger efficiency uncertainties.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for |y|<0.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 0.5<|y|<1, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1<|y|<1.5, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

The unfolded measured particle-level inclusive jet cross section as functions of jet pT (markers), for 1.5<|y|<2, compared to the NLO perturbative QCD prediction (histogram), using the CT14NLO PDF set, with muR = muF = HT, and corrected for the NP effects. The experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = pT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the CT14NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for |y|<0.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 0.5<|y|<1. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1<|y|<1.5. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

Ratios (points) of the unfolded measured cross sections to the NNLO theoretical predictions, using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF set, with mu = HT, for 1.5<|y|<2. The vertical error bars show the statistical experimental uncertainty. The systematic experimental uncertainty, the total theoretical uncertainty, and the individual sources of theoretical uncertainty are shown.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for |y|<0.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 0.5<|y|<1. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1<|y|<1.5. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

The effect of aS(MZ) variation, for 1.5<|y|<2. The NNLO theoretical cross section predictions using the NNPDF31NNLO PDF with m = HT, calculated for different choices of aS (0.108, 0.110, 0.112, 0.114, 0.116, 0.117, 0.118, 0.119, 0.120, 0.122, and 0.124), are divided by the benchmark NNLO prediction for aS = 0.118 and the same choice of PDF set, muR, and muF. Also shown is the experimental unfolded measurement divided by the same benchmark prediction. The width of the unity line corresponds to the statistical uncertainty from the MC integration for the determination of the NNLO prediction. The error bars on the unfolded data correspond to the total experimental statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature.

Unfolded correlation matrix for |y|<0.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 0.5<|y|<1.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1<|y|<1.5.

Unfolded correlation matrix for 1.5<|y|<2.

Final state radiation correction used in the $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-p_{T}^{Z}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Final state radiation correction used in the $y^{Z}-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ cross-section measurement. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of statistical uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $y^Z$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for one-dimensional $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-p_{T}^{Z}$ measurement.

Correlation matrix of efficiency uncertainty for two-dimensional $y^Z-\phi_{\eta}^{*}$ measurement.

Measured total $Z$-boson cross-section for different datasets. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Measured double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic, and the third is due to the luminosity.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the single differential cross-sections in interval regions of $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $p_{T}^{Z}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Systematic uncertainties in the double differential cross-sections in interval regions of $y^{Z}$ and $\phi_{\eta}^{*}$, presented in percentage. The contributions from efficiency (Eff), background (BKG), final state radiation (FSR), closure test (Closure), and alignment and calibration (Alignment) are shown.

Single-differential production cross-sections for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Single-differential production cross-sections for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Single-differential production cross-sections for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainties are statistical, the second are correlated systematic uncertainties shared between intervals, and the last are uncorrelated systematic uncertainties.

Fraction of nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons (in \%) in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Nuclear modification factor $R_{p\text{Pb}}$ for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for prompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 8 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $p_\text{T}$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Cross-section ratios between 13 TeV and 5 TeV measurements for nonprompt $J/\psi$ mesons as a function of $y$. The first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=-0.2$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=-1$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Relative changes of cross-sections (in \%), for a polarisation of $\lambda_{\theta}=+1$ rather than zero, in ($p_\text{T},y$) intervals.

Measured charged jet differential cross section ratios for INEL proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV for $15<p_{T}^{ch jet}<20$ GeV/$c$.

pT-differential cross section of inclusive Dzero mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in the rapidity interval -0.96<y<0.04. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388.

pT-differential cross section of prompt Dzero mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in the rapidity interval -0.96<y<0.04. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388. Data points for pt<2 GeV/c from analysis "without vertexing". Data points for pt>2 GeV/c from the analysis "with vertexing" taken from PRL 113 (2014) 232301 (http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1296081).

First column: production cross sections per unit of rapidity for prompt D0 mesons, inclusive D0 mesons (no feed-down subtraction) and charm quarks in -0.96 < ycm < 0.04 in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. For D0 mesons, the second (sys) error is from the luminosity uncertainty, the third (sys) error is from the branching-ratio uncertainties. For charm quarks, the second (sys) error is from the luminosity uncertainty, the third (sys) error is from the Fragmentation Function uncertainties, the fourth (sys) error is from the rapidity shapes of D0 mesons and single charm quarks. Second column: value of <pT> of prompt D0 mesons in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV in the rapidity interval -0.96 < y < 0.04. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is the systematic uncertainty.

Ratio of D+ to D0 meson yield in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in -0.96<y< 0.04 as a function of pT. Branching ratio of D+->Kpipi : 0.0913. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388.

Ratio of D*+ to D0 meson yield in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in -0.96<y< 0.04 as a function of pT. Branching ratio of D*+->D0pi->Kpipi : 0.0388*0.677. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388.

Ratio of Ds to D0 meson yield in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in -0.96<y< 0.04 as a function of pT. Branching ratio of Ds->phipi->KKpi : 0.0224. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388.

Ratio of Ds to D+ meson yield in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in -0.96<y< 0.04 as a function of pT. Branching ratio of Ds->phipi->KKpi : 0.0224. Branching ratio of D+->Kpipi : 0.0913.

cross section of prompt Dzero mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 2<pt<5 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dzero mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 5<pt<8 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dzero mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 8<pt<16 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D0->Kpi : 0.0388. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dplus mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 2<pt<5 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D+->Kpipi : 0.0913. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dplus mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 5<pt<8 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D+->Kpipi : 0.0913. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dplus mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 8<pt<16 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D+->Kpipi : 0.0913. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dstar mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 2<pt<5 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D*+->D0pi->Kpipi : 0.0388*0.677. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dstar mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 5<pt<8 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D*+->D0pi->Kpipi : 0.0388*0.677. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

cross section of prompt Dstar mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV vs rapidity in the pt interval 8<pt<16 GeV/c. Branching ratio of D*+->D0pi->Kpipi : 0.0388*0.677. The second (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the B feed-down contribution. The first (sys) error is the systematic uncertainty from the other sources.

Nuclear modification factor RpPb of D0 mesons in p-Pb collisions at sqrt{sNN}=5.02 TeV in -0.96<y<0.04 as a function of pT. Data point for 0<pt<1 GeV/c from analysis "without vertexing". Data points for pt>1 GeV/c from the analysis "with vertexing" taken from PRL 113 (2014) 232301 (http://hepdata.cedar.ac.uk/view/ins1296081).

Pt-integrated nuclear modification factor RpA of prompt D0 mesons in -0.96 < ycm < 0.04. The first error is the statistical uncertainty, the second is the systematic uncertainty.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 40-60%.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 60-80%.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 80-100%.

pp reference spectrum, obtained by scaling down the measured charged jets at 7 TeV to 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 jets.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 0-20%.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 20-40%.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 40-60%.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 60-80%.

$p_{\rm T}$-differential production cross section of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 80-100%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 0-20%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 20-40%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 40-60%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 60-80%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.2 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 80-100%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 0-20%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 20-40%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 40-60%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 60-80%.

Nuclear modification factor $Q_{\rm pPb}$ of charged jets in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 measured with the ALICE detector, centrality 80-100%.

Centrality evolution of charged jet $Q_{\rm pPb}$ in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 and 20 < $p_{\rm {T, ch. jet}}$ < 30 GeV/c measured with the ALICE detector.

Centrality evolution of charged jet $Q_{\rm pPb}$ in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 and 40 < $p_{\rm {T, ch. jet}}$ < 50 GeV/c measured with the ALICE detector.

Centrality evolution of charged jet $Q_{\rm pPb}$ in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for R = 0.4 and 70 < $p_{\rm {T, ch. jet}}$ < 80 GeV/c measured with the ALICE detector.

Charged jet production cross section ratio for different resolution parameter R=0.2/R=0.4 measured with ALICE in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, minimum bias events.

Charged jet production cross section ratio for different resolution parameter R=0.2/R=0.4 measured with ALICE in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, 0-20% centrality.

Charged jet production cross section ratio for different resolution parameter R=0.2/R=0.4 measured with ALICE in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, 20-40% centrality.

Charged jet production cross section ratio for different resolution parameter R=0.2/R=0.4 measured with ALICE in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, 40-60% centrality.

Charged jet production cross section ratio for different resolution parameter R=0.2/R=0.4 measured with ALICE in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, 60-80% centrality.

Charged jet production cross section ratio for different resolution parameter R=0.2/R=0.4 measured with ALICE in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, 80-100% centrality.