Correlation matrix for the individual sources of systematic uncertainty considered in the analysis, for the combined opposite sign (OS) and same sign (SS) binned-template profile likelihood fit to data. The OS or SS refers to the charge signs of the primary lepton and the soft muon. The gamma parameters are NPs used to describe the effect of the limited statistics of the samples.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin signal regions of the analysis.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.

Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.

Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.

The normalisation factors for the dominant backgrounds of the analysis in each of the multi-bin and single-bin regions.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.

Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the two-step decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the Gtt decay.

The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the RPV decay.

Number of events in each signal region broken down by background type and the number of observed data events.

From left to right; the $95\%$ CL upper limits on the visible cross section (${\langle \epsilon\sigma \rangle}^{95}_{obs}$) and on the number of signal events. Next is the $95\%$ CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events. The last two columns show the confidence level for the background only hypothesis ($CL_{b}$) and the dicovery $p$-value along with the Gaussian significance (Z).

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in signal regions targeting long cascade decays of pair-produced gluinos. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 23 October 2016, and contains 16 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 13 (11) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV), with 3 (2) being b-tagged. The leading jet has a transverse momentum of 507 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.9$ TeV. A value of 343 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=6.4$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=1070$ GeV.

Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in a control region used to make predictions of the background from multijet production. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 18 July 2018, and contains 19 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 16 (10) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV). No jets were b-tagged. The leading et has a transverse momentum of 371 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.2$ TeV. A value of 8 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=0.2$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=767$ GeV.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $|P_{cross}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $Z^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved 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 all hadronic 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 $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wt}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wt}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wb}^{leading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R_{Wb}^{subleading}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra1}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra2}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra3}_{t,close}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra1}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra2}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra3}_{t,1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, t\bar{t}}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra1}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra2}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra3}_{jet1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta R^{extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra2}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $R^{pT, extra3}_{extra1}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Total cross-section at particle level in the all hadronic 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 cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{out}^{t,1}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 6. 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 $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ = 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 $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in $N_{jets}$ > 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.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 6 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 7 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ = 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|P_{cross}|$ vs $N_{jets}$ in $N_{jets}$ > 8 at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 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 particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1050.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 620.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 620.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 835.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 835.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1050.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1050.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 175.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 175.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 275.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 275.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 385.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 385.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1080.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1080.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 645.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 645.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 795.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 795.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1080.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1080.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at particle level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $\Delta\phi^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 0.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.0 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.0 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $|y^{t,1}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t,1}|$ < 2.5 at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,1}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,2}|$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 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 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 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 all hadronic resolved topology in 1315.0 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 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 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 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 < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1315.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic 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 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1315.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 970.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 970.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 970.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 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 $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 170.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 170.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 290.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 290.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 450.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ vs $p_{T}^{t,2}$ in 450.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,2}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the all hadronic resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.

The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of $80\,$GeV and $120\,$GeV, assuming no additional pile-up mitigation.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$ in $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events.

The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV vs pile-up for each of the four years of data taking.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.

The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV in three periods during the year 2017.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to $p_T(\mu\mu)$.

Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to the offline $E_T^{miss}$ calculation with muons treated as being invisible.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for a $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 150 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 175 GeV.

Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 175 GeV.

HLT_xe70_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2015.

HLT_xe90_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.

HLT_xe110_pufit trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2017. This trigger included an implicit requirement of cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

HLT_xe110_pufit_xe70 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout each year.

Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $p_T(\mu\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout the year.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.

The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.

Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$

Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.

Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.

The expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The +1 $\sigma$ expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The -1 $\sigma$ expected exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The +1 $\sigma$ observed exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The -1 $\sigma$ observed exclusion limit contours at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

The observed and expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production in the $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})$-$m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane.

Expected and observed 95% CL exclusion upper limits on the higgsino production ($\tilde{\chi}\tilde{\chi} \equiv \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{\mp}_{1}$) cross-section in the signal of $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G} $ as a function of the higgsino mass.

The distribution of $S_{E_\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}$ after the selection of diphoton candidates with $120~GeV < m_{\gamma\gamma} < 130~GeV$. Expected distributions are shown for the $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2} \to W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} $ signal with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})=200~GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=0.5~GeV$, and the $h\tilde{G} h\tilde{G}$ signal with $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=150~GeV$ and $m(\tilde{G})=1~MeV$. These overlaid signal points are representative of the model kinematics. The sum in quadrature of the MC statistical and experimental systematic uncertainties in the total background is shown as the hatched bands, while the theoretical uncertainties in the background normalisation are not included. The $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $t\bar{t}\gamma\gamma$ processes have a negligible contribution and are not represented. Overflow events are included in the rightmost bin. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the background.

Acceptance and efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signal in each category.

Acceptance and efficiency for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signal in each category.

Cut flow for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signal sample at $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2})=200~GeV$, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=0.5~GeV$, with 260000 entries.

Cut flow for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signal sample at $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})=150~GeV$, $m(\tilde{G})=1~MeV$, with 50000 entries.

Event yields in the range 120 <$m\gamma\gamma$< 130 GeV for data, signal models, the SM Higgs boson background and non-resonant background in each analysis category after the fit.

Event yields in the range 120 <$m\gamma\gamma$< 130 GeV for data, signal models, the SM Higgs boson background and non-resonant background in each analysis category before the fit.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the leptonic channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the leptonic channel.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the hadronic channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the hadronic channel.

Acceptance for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the rest channel.

Efficiency for the $W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} h \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ signals in the rest channel.

Acceptance for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signals in the each channel.

Efficiency for the $h \tilde{G} h \tilde{G}$ signals in the each channel.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ QCD CR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\ell\ell jj$ SR.

Observed and expected multivariate discriminant distribution in the $\ell\ell\nu\nu jj$ SR.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 0.33 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 0.67.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 0.67 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 1.00.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 1.00 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 1.33.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 1.33 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 1.67.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 1.67 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 2.00.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.00 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 2.33.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.33 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 2.67.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.67 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 3.00.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 3.00 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 3.33.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 3.33 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 3.67.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 3.67 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 4.00.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single vertical slice of the Lund jet plane between 4.00 < ln(R/#DeltaR) < 4.33.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 0.69 < ln(1/z) < 0.97.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 0.97 < ln(1/z) < 1.25.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 1.25 < ln(1/z) < 1.52.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 1.80 < ln(1/z) < 2.08.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.08 < ln(1/z) < 2.36.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.36 < ln(1/z) < 2.63.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.63 < ln(1/z) < 2.91.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 2.91 < ln(1/z) < 3.19.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 3.19 < ln(1/z) < 3.47.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 3.47 < ln(1/z) < 3.74.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 3.74 < ln(1/z) < 4.02.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 4.02 < ln(1/z) < 4.30.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 4.30 < ln(1/z) < 4.57.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 4.57 < ln(1/z) < 4.85.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 4.85 < ln(1/z) < 5.13.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 5.13 < ln(1/z) < 5.41.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 5.41 < ln(1/z) < 5.68.

Normalized differential cross-section of the Lund jet plane. The first systematic uncertainty is detector systematics, the second is background systematic uncertainties. The data is presented as a 1D distribution, for a single horizontal slice of the Lund jet plane between 5.68 < ln(1/z) < 5.96.

The summed covariance matrix of all systematic and statistical uncertainties associated with the measurement in bins of $\ln{(1/z)} \times \ln{(R/\Delta R)}$.

The summed covariance matrix of all statistical uncertainties associated with the measurement in bins of $\ln{(1/z)} \times \ln{(R/\Delta R)}$.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp\to H)B(H\to Z(\eta_c~\text{or}~J/\psi))/$pb. The smaller (larger) quoted ranges around the expected limits represent $\pm 1\sigma$ ($\pm 2\sigma$) fluctuations.