Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 3.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 0.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the e+jet btag control region.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the $\mu$+jet btag control region.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.8 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.5 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.5 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.9 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.7 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.7 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.4 pct.. Efficiency corrected cross section for both leptons inside the angular range 44 to 136 degrees with an acollinearity cut of < 25 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.3 pct.. Efficiency corrected cross section for both leptons inside the angular range 44 to 136 degrees with an acollinearity cut of < 25 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.3 pct.. Efficiency corrected cross section for both leptons inside the angular range 44 to 136 degrees with an acollinearity cut of < 25 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.5 pct.. s-channel contribution to the cross section extrapolated to the full solid angle (no acollinearity cut).

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.4 pct.. s-channel contribution to the cross section extrapolated to the full solid angle (no acollinearity cut).

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.4 pct.. s-channel contribution to the cross section extrapolated to the full solid angle (no acollinearity cut).

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.002.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.002.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.003.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.004.. Both leptons inside the angle range 44 to 136 degrees with acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.004.. Both leptons inside the angle range 44 to 136 degrees with acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.002.. Both leptons inside the angle range 44 to 136 degrees with acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. s-channel contribution extrapolated to full solid angle.. Acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. s-channel contribution extrapolated to full solid angle.. Acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.003.. s-channel contribution extrapolated to full solid angle.. Acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Determination of the effective vector and axial-vector coupling constants of the neutral current to charged leptons, the effective electroweak mixing angle, and the strong coupling constant.

Asymmetry determined from the number of events in the forward and backward hemisphere. Estimated systematic error is 0.005.

Asymmetry determined using the maximum likelihood method. Estimated systematic error is 0.005.

Asymmetry determined from the number of events in the forward and backward hemisphere. Estimated systematic error is <0.01.

Asymmetry determined using the maximum likelihood method. Estimated systematic error is <0.01.

Asymmetry from a subsample of events with a muon decay of the tau.

Measured cross section. In addition to the theta range there is also the restriction that the acollinearity angle is < 25 degrees. Additional systematic uncertainty is 0.6 pct.

Cross section for the GCR selection which has the additional restriction of acollinearity angle < 5 degrees, E(gamma) > 3.8 GeV and delta > 5 degrees. Additional systematic uncertainty is 0.6 pct.

Asymmetry determined from number of events in forward and backward hemispheres not extrapolated to full solid angle. Additional systematic uncertainty is 0.01.

Cross section after subtraction of the t-channel and interference contributions. Corrected cross section for theta 44 to 136 degrees and acollinearity <25 degrees. Additional systematic uncertainty is 1.0 pct.

Cross section after subtraction of the t-channel and interference contributions. Extrapolation to the full solid angle. Additional systematic uncertainty is 1.1 pct.

Forward-backward asymmetry after subtraction of the t-channel and interference contributions. Angular range is 44 to 136 degrees and acollinearity is <25 degrees. Additional systematic uncertainty is 0.01.

No description provided.

No description provided.

Electroweak parameters from simultaneous fit to leptonic data.

No description provided.

Errors include systematics.

No description provided.

No description provided.

Data were rescaled to usual scale by OPY.