Showing 10 of 6239 results
Azimuthal correlations of charged particles in xenon-xenon collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $ \sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}} =$ 5.44 TeV are studied. The data were collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC with a total integrated luminosity of 3.42 $\mu$b$^{-1}$. The collective motion of the system formed in the collision is parameterized by a Fourier expansion of the azimuthal particle density distribution. The azimuthal anisotropy coefficients $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$, and $v_{4}$ are obtained by the scalar-product, two-particle correlation, and multiparticle correlation methods. Within a hydrodynamic picture, these methods have different sensitivities to non-collective and fluctuation effects. The dependence of the Fourier coefficients on the size of the colliding system is explored by comparing the xenon-xenon results with equivalent lead-lead data. Model calculations that include initial-state fluctuation effects are also compared to the experimental results. The observed angular correlations provide new constraints on the hydrodynamic description of heavy ion collisions.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the two-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the scalar-product technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the four-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the six-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Elliptic-flow coefficients $v_2$ based on the eight-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Triangular-flow coefficients $v_3$ based on the two-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
Triangular-flow coefficients $v_3$ based on the scalar-product technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Triangular-flow coefficients $v_3$ based on the four-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
The $v_4$ coefficients based on the two-particle correlations technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 2.4$.
The $v_4$ coefficients based on the scalar-product technique, as functions of transverse momentum and in bins of centrality. The results correspond to the range $|\eta| < 0.8$.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_2$ flow harmonics with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The $v_2$ results are shown for two-, four-, six-, and eight-particle correlations.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_3$ flow harmonics with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The results are shown for two- and four-particle correlations.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_4$ flow harmonics with $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$. The results are shown for two-particle correlations.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2\}$ ratios.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{6\}/v_2\{4\}$ ratios.
Centrality dependence of $v_3\{4\}/v_3\{2\}$ ratios.
The $v_2$ results measured with two-particle correlations from PbPb collisions at $5.02~$TeV, shown as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in eleven centrality bins.
The $v_3$ results measured with two-particle correlations from PbPb collisions at $5.02~$TeV, shown as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in eleven centrality bins.
The $v_4$ results measured with two-particle correlations from PbPb collisions at $5.02~$TeV, shown as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in eleven centrality bins.
Ratios of the $v_2$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 11 centrality bins.
Ratios of the $v_3$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 11 centrality bins.
Ratios of the $v_4$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in 11 centrality bins.
Centrality dependence of the spectrum-weighted $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations method for $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0 \mathrm{GeV}/c$ for PbPb collisions at $5.02$~TeV.
Ratios of the $v_2$, $v_3$, and $v_4$ harmonic coefficients from two-particle correlations in XeXe and PbPb collisions as functions or $0.3 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 3.0~\mathrm{GeV}/c$ as a function of centrality.
A search for dark matter produced in association with top quarks in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is presented. The data set used corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC. Whereas previous searches for neutral scalar or pseudoscalar mediators considered dark matter production in association with a top quark pair only, this analysis also includes production modes with a single top quark. The results are derived from the combination of multiple selection categories that are defined to target either the single top quark or the top quark pair signature. No significant deviations with respect to the standard model predictions are observed. The results are interpreted in the context of a simplified model in which a scalar or pseudoscalar mediator particle couples to a top quark and subsequently decays into dark matter particles. Scalar and pseudoscalar mediator particles with masses below 290 and 300 GeV, respectively, are excluded at 95 % confidence level, assuming a dark matter particle mass of 1 GeV and mediator couplings to fermions and dark matter particles equal to unity.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the CRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is negligible and therefore is not shown. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the SL selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
Background-only post-fit $p_{T}^{miss}$ distributions for the SRs of the AH selection. The total theory signal (t/t+DM and tt+DM summed together) is presented by the red solid lines for a scalar mediator mass of 100 GeV. The last bin contains overflow events.
The expected and observed 95% CL limits on the DM production cross sections, relative to the theory predictions, shown for the scalar models.
The expected and observed 95% CL limits on the DM production cross sections, relative to the theory predictions, shown for the pseudoscalar models.
Cross sections of the t+DM and tt+DM processes, for different mediator and dark matter masses. The scalar hypothesis is considered. The t+DM processes are split by production mode (t-, s-, and tW-channels). The sum of the three is also provided.
Cross sections of the t+DM and tt+DM processes, for different mediator and dark matter masses. The pseudoscalar hypothesis is considered. The t+DM processes are split by production mode (t-, s-, and tW-channels). The sum of the three is also provided.
A search is presented for four-top-quark production using an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Events are selected if they contain a same-sign lepton pair or at least three leptons (electrons or muons). Jet multiplicity, jet flavour and event kinematics are used to separate signal from the background through a multivariate discriminant, and dedicated control regions are used to constrain the dominant backgrounds. The four-top-quark production cross section is measured to be 24$^{+7}_{-6}$ fb. This corresponds to an observed (expected) significance with respect to the background-only hypothesis of 4.3 (2.4) standard deviations and provides evidence for this process.
The results of fitted inclusive ${t\bar{t}t\bar{t}}$ cross-section
The results of the fitted signal strength $\mu$
List of the uncertainties in the signal strength $\mu$, grouped in categories. The quoted values are obtained by repeating the fit, fixing a set of nuisance parameters of the sources corresponding to the considered category, and subtracting in quadrature the resulting uncertainty from the total uncertainty of the nominal fit presented in the last line. The total uncertainty is different from the sum in quadrature of the components due to correlations between nuisance parameters.
Post-fit background and signal yields in the full signal region. The total systematic uncertainty differs from the sum in quadrature of the different uncertainties due to correlations. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair. HF $e$ (HF $\mu$) refers to events with one non-prompt electron (muon) from heavy-flavour hadron decay, LF refers to events with a lepton originating from light-meson decay, and 'Other $t\bar{t}X$' includes events coming from $t\bar{t}WZ$, $t\bar{t}Z$+jets, $t\bar{t}WH$, $t\bar{t}HH$.
Ranking of the nuisance parameters included in the fit according to their impact on the signal strength $\mu$. Only the 20 most highly ranked nuisance parameters are shown in the thumbnail figure. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu$ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu$, both referring to the upper $x$-axis scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta\mu$, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu$ with the result of the fit when fixing the nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta}$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta\theta$ ($\pm \Delta\hat{\theta}$). The black points show the pulls of the parameter relative to their nominal values, $\theta_0$. The nominal value for all parameters is $\theta_0 = 0$. The pulls of the most impactful parameters and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta\hat{\theta}/\Delta\theta$, are referenced to the lower $x$-axis scale. In the table, POI means Parameter of Interest.
Comparison between data and prediction before the fit ('Pre-Fit') for the 'HF e' control region. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction before the fit ('Pre-Fit') for the 'HF mu' control region. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction before the fit ('Pre-Fit') for the $m_{ee}^{PV}$ variable in the 'Conv.' control region. The first and last bins contain underflow and overflow events, respectively. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction before the fit ('Pre-Fit') for the $\Sigma p_{T}^{l}$ variable in the 'ttW' control region. The first and last bins contain underflow and overflow events, respectively. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit ('Post-Fit') for the 'HF e' control region. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit ('Post-Fit') for the 'HF mu' control region. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit ('Post-Fit') for the $m_{ee}^{PV}$ variable in the 'Conv.' control region. The first and last bins contain underflow and overflow events, respectively. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit ('Post-Fit') for the $\Sigma p_{T}^{l}$ variable in the in 'ttW' control region. The first and last bins contain underflow and overflow events, respectively. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction before the fit ('Pre-Fit') for the BDT score in the signal region. The first and last bins contain underflow and overflow events, respectively. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
Comparison between data and prediction after the fit ('Post-Fit') for the BDT score in the signal region. The first and last bins contain underflow and overflow events, respectively. Q mis-id refers to the charge misassignment background. Mat. Conv. and Low $m_{\gamma^*}$ refer respectively to events with one non-prompt electron originating from photon conversion in the detector material and to events with a virtual photon leading to an $e^+e^-$ pair.
The Standard Model of particle physics encapsulates our current best understanding of physics at the smallest scales. A fundamental axiom of this theory is the universality of the couplings of the different generations of leptons to the electroweak gauge bosons. The measurement of the ratio of the rate of decay of $W$ bosons to $\tau$-leptons and muons, $R(\tau/\mu) = B(W \to \tau \nu_\tau)/B(W \to \mu \nu_\mu)$, constitutes an important test of this axiom. A measurement of this quantity with a novel technique using di-leptonic $t\bar{t}$ events is presented based on 139 fb${}^{-1}$ of data recorded with the ATLAS detector in proton--proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. Muons originating from $W$ bosons and those originating from an intermediate $\tau$-lepton are distinguished using the lifetime of the $\tau$-lepton, through the muon transverse impact parameter, and differences in the muon transverse momentum spectra. The value of $R(\tau/\mu)$ is found to be $0.992 \pm 0.013 [\pm 0.007 (stat) \pm 0.011 (syst)]$ and is in agreement with the hypothesis of universal lepton couplings as postulated in the Standard Model. This is the most precise measurement of this ratio, and the only such measurement from the Large Hadron Collider, to date.
The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $5<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<10$ GeV selection in the $e-\mu$ channel.
The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $5<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<10$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.
The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $10<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<20$ GeV selection in the $e-\mu$ channel.
The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $10<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<20$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.
The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $20<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<250$ GeV selection in the $e-\mu$ channel.
The number of data and fitted simulated events in each bin of the $|d_{0}^{\mu}|$ distribution in the $20<p_{\textrm{T}}^{\mu}<250$ GeV selection in the $\mu-\mu$ channel.
The measurement of the ratio of the rate of decay of W bosons to τ-leptons and muons, $R(\tau/\mu)=B(W\rightarrow\tau\nu_\tau)/B(W\rightarrow \mu\nu_\mu)$.
A search for Higgs boson pair production via vector-boson fusion (VBF) in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state is carried out with the ATLAS experiment using 126 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data delivered at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV by the Large Hadron Collider. This search is sensitive to VBF production of additional heavy bosons that may decay into Higgs boson pairs, and in a non-resonant topology it can constrain the quartic coupling between the Higgs bosons and vector bosons. No significant excess relative to the Standard Model expectation is observed, and limits on the production cross-section are set at the 95 % confidence level for a heavy scalar resonance in the context of an extended Higgs sector, and for non-resonant Higgs boson pair production. Interpretation in terms of the coupling between a Higgs boson pair and two vector bosons is also provided: coupling values normalised to the Standard Model expectation of $\kappa_{2V} < -0.43$ and $\kappa_{2V} > 2.56$ are excluded at the 95 % confidence level in data.
Acceptance x efficiency versus $\kappa_{2V}$ for non-resonant signal of $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus $\kappa_{2V}$ for non-resonant signal of $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus $\kappa_{2V}$ for non-resonant signal of $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus $\kappa_{2V}$ for non-resonant signal of $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both narrow and broad resonance $X$ to $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both narrow and broad resonance $X$ to $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both narrow and broad resonance $X$ to $HH$.
Acceptance x efficiency versus resonance mass for both narrow and broad resonance $X$ to $HH$.
Post-fit mass distribution of the $HH$ candidates in the signal region. The expected background is shown after the profile-likelihood fit to data with the background-only hypothesis; the narrow-width resonant signal at 800 GeV and the non-resonant signal at $\kappa_{2V}$ = 3 are overlaid, both normalised to the corresponding observed upper limits on the cross-section.
Post-fit mass distribution of the $HH$ candidates in the signal region. The expected background is shown after the profile-likelihood fit to data with the background-only hypothesis; the narrow-width resonant signal at 800 GeV and the non-resonant signal at $\kappa_{2V}$ = 3 are overlaid, both normalised to the corresponding observed upper limits on the cross-section.
Post-fit mass distribution of the $HH$ candidates in the signal region. The expected background is shown after the profile-likelihood fit to data with the background-only hypothesis; the narrow-width resonant signal at 800 GeV and the non-resonant signal at $\kappa_{2V}$ = 3 are overlaid, both normalised to the corresponding observed upper limits on the cross-section.
Post-fit mass distribution of the $HH$ candidates in the signal region. The expected background is shown after the profile-likelihood fit to data with the background-only hypothesis; the narrow-width resonant signal at 800 GeV and the non-resonant signal at $\kappa_{2V}$ = 3 are overlaid, both normalised to the corresponding observed upper limits on the cross-section.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of narrow resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of narrow resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of narrow resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of narrow resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of broad resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of broad resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of broad resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of broad resonance $X$ to $HH$ as a function of the mass $m_{X}$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of non-resonant $HH$ production via VBF as a function of the di-vector-boson-di-Higgs-boson coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$. The theory prediction of the cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ is also shown. The minimum theory cross-section is 1.37 fb at $\kappa_{2V}=1.17$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of non-resonant $HH$ production via VBF as a function of the di-vector-boson-di-Higgs-boson coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$. The theory prediction of the cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ is also shown. The minimum theory cross-section is 1.37 fb at $\kappa_{2V}=1.17$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of non-resonant $HH$ production via VBF as a function of the di-vector-boson-di-Higgs-boson coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$. The theory prediction of the cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ is also shown. The minimum theory cross-section is 1.37 fb at $\kappa_{2V}=1.17$.
Observed and expected limits at 95% CL on the cross-sections of non-resonant $HH$ production via VBF as a function of the di-vector-boson-di-Higgs-boson coupling modifier $\kappa_{2V}$. The theory prediction of the cross-section as a function of $\kappa_{2V}$ is also shown. The minimum theory cross-section is 1.37 fb at $\kappa_{2V}=1.17$.
A search for charged Higgs bosons decaying into $W^\pm W^\pm$ or $W^\pm Z$ bosons is performed, involving experimental signatures with two leptons of the same charge, or three or four leptons with a variety of charge combinations, missing transverse momentum and jets. A data sample of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018 is used. The data correspond to a total integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search is guided by a type-II seesaw model that extends the scalar sector of the Standard Model with a scalar triplet, leading to a phenomenology that includes doubly and singly charged Higgs bosons. Two scenarios are explored, corresponding to the pair production of doubly charged $H^{\pm\pm}$ bosons, or the associated production of a doubly charged $H^{\pm\pm}$ boson and a singly charged $H^\pm$ boson. No significant deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed. $H^{\pm\pm}$ bosons are excluded at 95% confidence level up to 350 GeV and 230 GeV for the pair and associated production modes, respectively.
Measurement of the fiducial inclusive and differential production cross sections of the Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV are performed using events where the Higgs boson decays into a pair of W bosons that subsequently decay into a final state with an electron, a muon, and a pair of neutrinos. The analysis is based on data collected with the CMS detector at the LHC during 2016-2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. Production cross sections are measured as a function of the transverse momentum of the Higgs boson and the associated jet multiplicity. The Higgs boson signal is extracted and simultaneously unfolded to correct for selection efficiency and resolution effects using maximum-likelihood fits to the observed distributions in data. The integrated fiducial cross section is measured to be 86.5 $\pm$ 9.5 fb, consistent with the Standard Model expectation of 82.5 $\pm$ 4.2 fb. No significant deviation from the Standard Model expectations is observed in the differential measurements.
The fiducial differential signal strength and cross section in each Higgs pT bin. Both the unregularized and regularized signal strengthes are given. For the regularized case the uncertainty breakdown is given in terms of statistical (stat), experimental (exp), theoretical uncertainties on the background (bkg) and on the signal (sig), and the luminosity uncertainty (lumi). The regularization estimated bias (bias) is also given. The fiducial cross section and its full uncertainty in each bin are also given. The last bin is inclusive.
The correlation matrix for the ptH measurements, both for the unregularized and regularized fits. The last bin is inclusive.
The fiducial differential signal strength and cross section in each njet bin. The uncertainty breakdown is given in terms of statistical (stat), experimental (exp), theoretical uncertainties on the background (bkg) and on the signal (sig), and the luminosity uncertainty (lumi). The fiducial cross section and its full uncertainty in each bin are also given. The last bin is inclusive.
The correlation matrix for the njet measurement. The last bin is inclusive.
The fiducial integrated signal strength and cross section The uncertainty breakdown is given in terms of statistical (stat), experimental (exp), theoretical uncertainties on the background (bkg) and on the signal (sig), and the luminosity uncertainty (lumi). The fiducial cross section and its full uncertainty in each bin are also given.
A search for the supersymmetric partners of quarks and gluons (squarks and gluinos) in final states containing jets and missing transverse momentum, but no electrons or muons, is presented. The data used in this search were recorded by the ATLAS experiment in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV during Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The results are interpreted in the context of various $R$-parity-conserving models where squarks and gluinos are produced in pairs or in association and a neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 2.30 TeV for a simplified model containing only a gluino and the lightest neutralino, assuming the latter is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.85 TeV are excluded if the lightest neutralino is massless. These limits extend substantially beyond the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded previously by similar searches with the ATLAS detector.
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-SSd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-SSd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-SSd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-SSd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed BDT-GGd1 score distributions in signal regions GGd1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed BDT-GGd1 score distributions in signal regions GGd1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed BDT-GGo1 score distributions in signal regions GGo1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed BDT-GGo1 score distributions in signal regions GGo1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with direct decays.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with direct decays.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with direct decays
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with direct decays
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60~GeV and exclusio limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60~GeV and exclusio limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks and gluinos in models with one-step decay. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks and gluinos in models with one-step decay. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with one-step decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with one-step decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with direct decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with direct decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Single- and double-differential cross-section measurements are presented for the production of top-quark pairs, in the lepton + jets channel at particle and parton level. Two topologies, resolved and boosted, are considered and the results are presented as a function of several kinematic variables characterising the top and $t\bar{t}$ system and jet multiplicities. The study was performed using data from $pp$ collisions at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $36~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. Due to the large $t\bar{t}$ cross-section at the LHC, such measurements allow a detailed study of the properties of top-quark production and decay, enabling precision tests of several Monte Carlo generators and fixed-order Standard Model predictions. Overall, there is good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the data.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Total cross-section at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The results of a search for direct pair production of top squarks and for dark matter in events with two opposite-charge leptons (electrons or muons), jets and missing transverse momentum are reported, using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2 (2015-2018). This search considers the pair production of top squarks and is sensitive across a wide range of mass differences between the top squark and the lightest neutralino. Additionally, spin-0 mediator dark-matter models are considered, in which the mediator is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The mediator subsequently decays to a pair of dark-matter particles. No significant excess of events is observed above the Standard Model background, and limits are set at 95% confidence level. The results exclude top squark masses up to about 1 TeV, and masses of the lightest neutralino up to about 500 GeV. Limits on dark-matter production are set for scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator masses up to about 250 (300) GeV.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.