The combined covariance matrix for the differential cross-section distribution.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential cross-section distribution.

Statistical covariance matrix for the differential cross-section distribution.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential cross-section distribution.

Systematic covariance matrix for the differential cross-section distribution.

The DV reconstruction efficiency for an HNL with $m_N = 2$ GeV and $c\tau_N = 10$ mm, as a function of the DV radius $r_{DV}$ using the customised vertex reconstruction for a selection of the fully leptonic MC samples. Decays from HNLs are shown for $ee$ DVs for HNLs with various masses.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model.

Observed 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the N mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $e$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $e$ Dirac model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 1SFH $\mu$ Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the N mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for 2QDH NH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-1$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

+2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

-2$\sigma$ Expected 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Observed 95% CL for the 2QDH IH Majorana model on the $N$ mean proper lifetime $c\tau_N$ vs. $m_N$.

Cutflow for background MC samples all channels

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\mu$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu e$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for uee 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for eee 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\mu$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 0.1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 1 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\mu$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu\mu\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu e\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu e\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $\mu e\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $e\mu\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\pi$ 10 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\pi$ 100 mm signal samples

Raw cutflow for $ee\pi$ 1000 mm signal samples

Cross sections of eee channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of uee channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of eee channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of uee channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of eee channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of uee channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of eee channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $ee\mu$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\mu$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\mu$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu e$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of uee channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $ee\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $e\mu\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu\mu\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for Dirac models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for Majorana models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for QD Dirac limit models

Cross sections of $\mu e\pi$ channels for QD Majorana limit models

Signal efficiencies for leptonic channels

Signal efficiencies for semi-leptonic channels

Pre-fit MC statistical uncertainties per bin. These values are used to quantify the MC statistical uncertainty contributions to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ based on elements from the covariance matrix obtained in the profile likelihood fit. Each MC statistical contribution is estimated by dividing the relevant covariance matrix entry (see Table 2) by the corresponding pre-fit MC statistical uncertainty for that bin.

The contribution of each source of systematic uncertainty to the total uncertainty in $m_t$ is provided. Each source's contribution is taken directly from the relevant element of the covariance matrix for the profile likelihood fit to $\overline{m_J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$ using data. The sign of the effect of each uncertainty is included.

The fitted $m_t$ is provided for each replica generated using bootstrapping. Each replica is a 3D histogram of $m_{J}$, $m_{jj}$, and $m_{tj}$, where $m_{J}$ has 50 bins between 145.0 GeV and 205.0 GeV. This method uses the BootstrapGenerator class in ROOT to initialise a pseudo-random number generator for each event, which is seeded by the value of the eventNumber and runNumber variables for a given event in the input dataset. The pseudo-random numbers are drawn from a Poisson distribution with rate parameter equal to 1. These are used to fluctuate the amount by which each replica histogram is filled. There are 1000 replicas, numbered from 0 to 999.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits on the ratio $g_{W'}/g_{W}$ for an SSM-like W$\prime$ boson are shown. The unity coupling ratio (blue dotted curve) corresponds to the SSM common benchmark. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian lower exclusion limits on the NUGIM G(221) mixing angle $\cot(\theta_{E})$ are shown as a function of the W$\prime$ boson mass. The theoretically excluded region is shaded in grey. The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction of a QBH in an associated $ au$ lepton and neutrino final state. Minimum threshold masses $m_{th}$ of up to 6.6 TeV are excluded at 95% CL. The observed limit (solid line) is obtained from the intersection with the LO QBH cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Bayesian upper limits at 95% CL on the cross section of the process $pp\rightarrow\tau\nu$ mediated via LQ exchange in the t-channel. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The predicted LQ cross section at LO in the three coupling benchmark scenarios is depicted in different colors for $g_{U}=1$. The uncertainty bandy correspond to the sum in quadrature of PDF and scale variations. The first benchmark scenario considers only couplings to left-handed SM fermions (i.e. $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$) and is referred to as "best fit LH". The second benchmark, referred to as "best fit LH+RH", considers $|\beta_{\text{R}}^{\text{b}\tau}|=1$ and all other $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$. In the third "democratic" benchmark, equal couplings only to LH fermions are assumed, i.e. $\beta_{\text{L}}^{ij}=1$ and $\beta_{\text{R}}^{ij}=0$ for all $i$ and $j$.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the LH+RH scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Expected and observed lower limits of the LQ mass as a function of the coupling $g_{U}$ in the democratic scenario. The blue band shows the 68% and 95% regions of $g_{U}$ preferred by the fit to the b anomalies data.

Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on each of the Wilson coefficients described by the EFT model based on 2016-2018 data. The three different coupling types represent a left-handed vector coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{L}$), tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{T}$), and scalar-tensor-like coupling ($\epsilon^{cb}_{S_{L}}$). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively.

Summary of exclusion limits (expected and observed) calculated at 95% CL for full Run-2 CMS data.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning from Figure 4.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme. The naming of the bins is "year_binnumber", following the binning used in Figure 4.

Predicted signal yields for the 2017 data-taking period, corresponding to 41.3 fb$^{-1}$, after the application of each search requirement (cumulative) for various signal hypothesis. The requirements listed are presented as total efficiencies w.r.t. the previous selection step.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. The total (stat. + syst.) uncertainties are considered.