Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.4$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and photon isolation cone radius $R=0.2$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.4$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ and isolation cone radius $0.2$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.

Measured ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted ratio of the differential cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production for $R=0.2$ and $R=0.4$ as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$.

Measured fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.8$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $0.8<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.01$ at NNLO QCD.

Predicted fiducial integrated cross section for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $R$ for $2.01<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$ at NNLO QCD.

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the dilepton transverse momentum $p^{ll}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the the four-body transverse momentum $p^{ll\gamma\gamma}_{\mathrm{T}}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Measured unfolded differential cross-section as a function of the four-body invariant mass $m_{ll\gamma\gamma}$. NLO predictions from Sherpa 2.2.10 and MadGraph5_aMC@NLO 2.7.3 are also shown. The uncertainty in the predictions is divided into statistical and theoretical uncertainties (scale and PDF+$\alpha_{s}$).

Expected and observed $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameters $f_{T,j}/\Lambda^{4}$ of transverse dimension-8 operators. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level. No unitarity constraints are applied.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,8}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,0}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,1}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,2}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,5}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,6}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,7}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Expected and observed unitarised $95\%$ confidence intervals for the coupling parameter $f_{T,9}/\Lambda^{4}$ in the clipping energy range between 1.1 and 5 TeV. The non-unitarised limits ($E_c = \infty$) are also shown. All parameter values outside of the stated range are excluded at the chosen confidence level.

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Distribution of $m_{T}^{W}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the muon channel, in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR, without applying the cut on $m_{T}^{W}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Expected distributions of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR, for the s-channel single-top signal, and for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. Each distribution is normalised to unity. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $W$+jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 3-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the $t\bar{t}$ 4-jets VR. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit presented in Section 5 in the paper. The uncertainty bands indicate the simulation's statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainties for the various processes in each bin, summed in quadrature. The ratio of the observed number to the predicted number of events in each bin is shown in the lower panel of the figure, with different vertical axis ranges. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the signal extraction fit described in Section 8 in the paper, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR before the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore not included. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction, with different vertical axis ranges. The uncertainty band indicates the total uncertainties and their correlations in each bin. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR after the fit to data, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, after subtraction of all backgrounds. The fitted distribution for the simulation of the signal is shown together with the post-fit uncertainty in the backgrounds. The binning is the same as the optimised binning used in the fit, resulting in a non-linear horizontal scale.

Pre-fit and post-fit event yields in the SR, for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$. The central value of the event yield for each process is calculated by summing the values of the discriminant bin contents, using the nominal expected yield for the pre-fit value, and the best-fit estimate for the post-fit value. The error includes statistical and systematic uncertainties summed in quadrature. All sources of systematic uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations and anti-correlations in the post-fit case. The uncertainties in the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, as well as in the s-channel signal cross-section, are not defined pre-fit and therefore only included in the post-fit uncertainties.

Observed impact of the different sources of uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. The 'Systematic uncertainties' category combines all sources of systematic uncertainties. The statistical uncertainty is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, including the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors. 'Total' gives the total uncertainty on the measurement.

Observed impact of the different sources of $t\bar{t}$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and 'ME/PS matching' to the matching of the ME to the parton shower.

Observed impact of the different sources of s-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of t-channel modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of $tW$ modelling uncertainty on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root. 'PS & had.' refers to the parton shower and hadronisation model, and '$t\bar{t}$ overlap' to the algorithm removing the overlap between $tW$ and $t\bar{t}$ production at NLO, as described in Section 7 in the paper.

Observed impact of the different sources of PDF uncertainties on the measured s-channel signal cross-section, grouped by categories. The impact of each category is obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed the set of nuisance parameters corresponding to that category, subtracting the square of the resulting uncertainty from the square of the uncertainty found in the full fit, and calculating the square root.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the leading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the subleading-jet $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $p_{T}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the lepton $\eta$. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Comparison between data and prediction after the fit to data in the signal region for the $m_{T}^{W}$. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.

Nuisance parameters ranked according to their post-fit impacts on the best-fit value of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. In the figure, only the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impacts are shown. The empty (solid) blue rectangles illustrate the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, corresponding to the upper axis. The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta\mu$, is calculated as the difference in the fitted value of $\mu$ between the nominal fit and the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. Several systematic uncertainties are split into different nuisance parameters, which are indicated by NP. JES (JER) indicates jet energy scale (resolution), and $\gamma$ indicates a nuisance parameter associated to the MC statistics in one of the 18 bins numbered from 0 to 17. The black points show the best-fit values of the nuisance parameters, with the error bars representing the post-fit uncertainties. Each nuisance parameter is shown wrt. its nominal value, $\theta_0$, and in units of its pre-fit uncertainty, except the free-floating normalisation factors of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds, and the parameters associated to the MC statistics in each bin, for which the post-fit values and uncertainties are shown.

Correlation matrix of the nuisance parameters and of the ratio $\mu$ of the measured cross-section to the predicted cross-section. The correlations are given after the fit to data. In the figure, only the parameters which have a correlation of at least 0.2 with any other parameter are shown.

Distribution of the MEM discriminant $P(S|X)$ in the SR for MEM discriminant values larger than $2.0\times10^{-4}$, for the collision data used for the measurement, and for 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

Measured values of the signal cross-section and of the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, obtained by statistical-only fits to the collision data used for the measurement, and to 1000 pseudo-data replicas, generated using a bootstrapping technique, in order to assess the statistical correlations between this measurement and others, for the purpose of combinations. The central values and their statistical uncertainties are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed all nuisance parameters, except the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets normalisation factors, which are let free-floating (unlike for the statistical uncertainty on the cross-section quoted in the paper). The replicas are obtained by reweighting each observed data event by a random integer generated according to Poisson statistics, using the <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/5361038">BootstrapGenerator</a> software package , which implements a technique described in <a href="https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945/">ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011</a>. The ATLAS event number and run number of each event are used as seed to uniquely but reproducibly initialise the random number generator for each event. Each pseudo-data replica is assigned an index, ranging from 0 to 999, corresponding to the random number index used consistently for each observed data event.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 38 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 39 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 40 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 31 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 32 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 33 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 34 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 35 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 36 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$), via vector boson fusion ($qq\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate is profiled, whereas the scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $qq\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 64 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 65 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 66 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 67 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 68 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 69 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 70 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 71 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 72 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 73 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 74 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 75 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 76 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 77 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 78 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 79 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 80 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 81 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 82 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 83 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 84 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 85 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 86 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 1 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12a of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 2 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12b of the publication.

Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 3 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 92 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 99 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 100 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 101 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 102 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 103 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 104 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 105 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 106 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 107 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 108 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 109 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 110 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 111 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 112 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 113 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.

Fractions of the cross-section $\sigma(gg\phi)$ as expected from SM for the loop contributions with only top quarks, only bottom quarks and from the top-bottom interference. These values are used to scale the corresponding signal components for a given mass $m_\phi$.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 16 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 17 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 18 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 19 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 15 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 21 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 22 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 23 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 24 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 20 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.

The rho-parameter, i.e. the ratio of the real to imaginary part of the elastic scattering amplitude extrapolated to t=0. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter B from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter B from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter C from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter C from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter D from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The nuclear slope parameter D from a fit of the form exp(-Bt-Ct^2-Dt^3). The systematic uncertainty includes experimental and theoretical uncerainties.

The total elastic cross section measured inside the fiducial volume. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental uncertainties.

The total elastic cross section measured inside the fiducial volume. The systematic uncertainty includes experimental uncertainties.

The total elastic cross section obtained from the fitted parameters, extrapolated to full phase space using only the nuclear amplitude.

The total elastic cross section obtained from the fitted parameters, extrapolated to full phase space using only the nuclear amplitude.

The total inelastic cross section.

The total inelastic cross section.

The ratio of elastic to total cross section.

The ratio of elastic to total cross section.

The differential elastic cross section as function of t with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are given as signed relative change for 20 sources of experimental uncertainty associated to nuisance parameters used in the fit for the extraction of physics parameters.

The differential elastic cross section as function of t with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties are given as signed relative change for 20 sources of experimental uncertainty associated to nuisance parameters used in the fit for the extraction of physics parameters.

Statistical covariance matrix for the measurement of the differential elastic cross section as function of t.

Statistical covariance matrix for the measurement of the differential elastic cross section as function of t.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the absolute differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the total uncertainty (i.e. fit including stat., not extrapolation) for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the statistical uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Covariance matrix for the extrapolation uncertainty for the measurement of the normalized differential cross section as a function of the rho observable at parton level.

Correlation matrix for all nuisance parameters and parameters of interest of the Likelihood fit.

This table is a numerical representation of Fig. 8 for all nuisance parameters.

Correlation matrix for the measurement of STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered.

Fitted values for kappa_g and kappa_y.

Correlation matrix for the measurement of kappa_g and kappa_y.

Summary of the 68% CL confidence intervals for individual measurements of SMEFT parameters observed in data. In each case, SMEFT parameters other than the one measured are fixed to 0.

Results of the EV parameter measurement in data, in the linear and linear+quadratic parameterizations of the SMEFT. All the EVs parameters are free to vary in the fits. The ranges correspond to 68% CL confidence intervals.

Observed linear correlation coefficients of the EVs parameters in the linear parameterization.

Observed linear correlation coefficients of the EVs parameters in the linear+quadratic parameterization.

Cross-sections times H->yy branching ratio for ggF +bbH, VBF, VH, ttH, and tH production. The values are obtained from a simultaneous fit to all categories. The theory uncertainties in the predictions include uncertainties due to missing higher-order terms in the perturbative QCD calculations and choices of parton distribution functions and value of alpha_s, as well as the H->yy branching ratio uncertainty.

Best-fit values and uncertainties for STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered. The values for the gg->H process also include the contributions from bbH production.

Correlation matrix for the measurement of STXS parameters in each of the 33 regions considered.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Systematic uncertainties for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with leptons at the Born-level to the cross section calculated with dressed leptons as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Correction scale factor from the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 100 GeV to the cross section calculated with an overlap removal with jets of pT greater than 30 GeV as a function of the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, averaging the electron and muon channels, derived with Sherpa2.2.11. The systematic uncertainty is obtained with an enveloppe around scale factors computed from Sherpa2.2.1 and MG5_aMC+Py8 CKKWL.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Measured fiducial differential cross sections for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The statistical, systematic, and luminosity uncertainties are given.

Systematic uncertainties for the Z boson p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the leading jet p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the high-p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $r_{Z,j}$ in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the collinear region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the back-to-back region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the H$_{\mathrm{T}}$ in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the $\Delta R_{Z,j}^{min}$ in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

Systematic uncertainties for the jet multiplicity in the high-S$_{\mathrm{T}}$ region in Z($\to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$) + high p$_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets events, where the EW Zjj contribution is treated as signal and not subtracted as background. The uncertainties are presented as a percentage of the measured cross-section for the upward variation of each source of uncertainty in each bin.

$|y^{t}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Fiducial phase-space cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

${\chi}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

$|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at parton level, for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,1}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ covariance matrix for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,2}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,2}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.1 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 0.35 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.35 TeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.3, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.3 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.9, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 0.9 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.2 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.2 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1.5 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at particle level for 0.9 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2, 1.5 TeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 4 TeV.

$p_{T}^{t}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,1}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t,2}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|{y}^{t,2}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$m^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|y_{B}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\Delta \phi(t_{1}, t_{2})|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

$|\cos\theta^{*}|$ covariance matrix for the normalized differential cross-section at particle level.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.55 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.6 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.6 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes p_{T}^{t,2}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.75 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 2 TeV.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ absolute normalized cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes |{y}^{t,2}|$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.5 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 1 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.