Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-High-Sideband-EWK (top-left), VR-High-R-EWK (top-right), VR-1J-High-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in VR-Int-EWK (top-left), VR-Low-EWK (top-right), VR-Low-2-EWK (bottom-left), and VR-OffShell-EWK (bottom-right) from the EWK search after a simultaneous fit of the control regions. The hatched band includes both the systematic and statistical uncertainties. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VRC-STR (top-left), VRLow-STR (top-right), VRMed-STR (bottom-left), and VRHigh-STR (bottom-right). Each validation region is fit separately with the corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The entries are normalized to the bin width, and the last bin is the overflow.

Observed and expected jet multiplicity in VRLow-STR (top-left), VRMed-STR (top-right), and VRHigh-STR (bottom) after a fit performed on the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution and corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected jet multiplicity in VRLow-STR (top-left), VRMed-STR (top-right), and VRHigh-STR (bottom) after a fit performed on the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution and corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected jet multiplicity in VRLow-STR (top-left), VRMed-STR (top-right), and VRHigh-STR (bottom) after a fit performed on the $m_{\ell\ell}$ distribution and corresponding control region. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched band. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in VR3L-STR without a fit to the data. The 'Other' category includes the negligible contributions from $t\bar{t}$ and $Z/\gamma^*$+jets processes. The hatched band contains the statistical uncertainty and the theoretical systematic uncertainties of the $WZ$/$ZZ$ prediction, which are the dominant sources of uncertainty. No fit is performed. The last bin contains the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected distributions in five EWK search regions after a simultaneous fit to the SR and CR. In the top row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-High_8-EWK and $m_{bb}$ in SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. In the middle row, left-to-right, are $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Int-EWK and $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ in SR-Low-EWK. In the bottom row is $m_{\ell\ell}$ in SR-OffShell-EWK. Overlaid are example C1N2 and GMSB signal models, where the numbers in the brackets indicate the masses, in $\mathrm{GeV}$, of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ or the mass of the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and branching ratio to the Higgs boson respectively. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions in SRC-STR (top-left), SRLow-STR (top-right), SRMed-STR (bottom-left), and SRHigh-STR (bottom-right), with the binning used for interpretations after a separate simultaneous fit to each signal region and control region pair. The red dashed lines are example signal models overlaid on the figure. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins are the overflow.

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours from the EWK analysis for the C1N2 model (left) and GMSB model (right). The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95$\%$ CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties on the background prediction and experimental uncertainties on the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The gray shaded areas indicate observed limits on these models from the two lepton channels of Ref.~[arXiv: 1803.02762] and Ref.~[arXiv: 1403.5294].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$ ilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].The grey numbers indicated the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].The grey numbers indicated the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].The grey numbers indicated the observed 95\% CL upper limit on the cross section.

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

Expected and observed exclusion contours derived from the combination of all of the Strong search SRs for the $\tilde{g}$--$\tilde{\ell}$ (top-left), $\tilde{g}$--$Z$ (top-right), and $\tilde{s}--Z$ (bottom) models. The dashed line indicates the expected limits at 95\% CL and the surrounding band shows the $1\sigma$ variation of the expected limit as a consequence of the uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties of the signal ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{exp}$). The red dotted lines surrounding the observed limit contours indicate the variation resulting from changing the signal cross-section within its uncertainty ($\pm1\sigma_\mathrm{theory}^\mathrm{SUSY}$). The grey-shaded area indicates the observed limits on these models from Ref. [23].

The combined $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution of VRLow-STR and SRLow-STR (left), and the same region with the $\Delta\phi(\boldsymbol{j}_{1,2},\boldsymbol{\mathit{p}}_{ ext{T}}^{ ext{miss}})<0.4$ requirement, used as a control region to normalize the $Z/\gamma^*+\mathrm{jets}$ process (right). Separate fits for the SR and VR are performed, as for the results in the paper, and the resulting distributions are merged. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The last bins contain the overflow.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the four Strong search edge signal regions. `Leptons' refers to electrons and muons only. The gluino-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=800~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRC-STR with 60000 Monte Carlo (MC) events generated. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for SRMed-STR with 30000 (MC) events generated. The gluino-slepton model with $m_{ ilde{g}}=2~TeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1.3~TeV$ is used for SRLow-STR and SRHigh-STR with 30000 MC events generated. The Generator Filter requires two 5~GeV leptons and 100~GeV of \met. The SUSY2 kernel requires at least two leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>9~GeV$ or at least one lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>25~GeV$ and a photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>40~GeV$, with all objects within $|\eta|=2.6$.

Cutflow of expected events in the three Strong search on-$Z$ signal regions. The cutflow up to the signal region specific requirements is the same as in the Strong search edge cutflow. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for all of the on-$Z$ signal regions with 30000 (MC) events generated.

Cutflow of expected events in the three Strong search on-$Z$ signal regions. The cutflow up to the signal region specific requirements is the same as in the Strong search edge cutflow. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for all of the on-$Z$ signal regions with 30000 (MC) events generated.

Cutflow of expected events in the three Strong search on-$Z$ signal regions. The cutflow up to the signal region specific requirements is the same as in the Strong search edge cutflow. The slepton-$Z^{(*)}$ model with $m_{ ilde{\ell}}=1200~GeV$ and $m_{ ilde{\chi}_1^0}=700~GeV$ is used for all of the on-$Z$ signal regions with 30000 (MC) events generated.

The combined $m_{jj}$ distribution of CR-Z-EWK and SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in CR-Z-met-EWK (right), which removes the upper limit of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}) < 9$ from the definition of CR-Z-EWK. This $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ tail overlaps other control and validation regions, but not signal regions. The arrows indicate the signal region SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ phase space which is not included in CR-Z-EWK (right). All EWK search control and signal regions are included in the fit. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The theoretical uncertainties from CR-Z-EWK are applied to CR-Z-met-EWK. The last bins contain the overflow.

The combined $m_{jj}$ distribution of CR-Z-EWK and SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in CR-Z-met-EWK (right), which removes the upper limit of $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}) < 9$ from the definition of CR-Z-EWK. This $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ tail overlaps other control and validation regions, but not signal regions. The arrows indicate the signal region SR-Low-EWK (left), and the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ phase space which is not included in CR-Z-EWK (right). All EWK search control and signal regions are included in the fit. All statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the hatched bands. The theoretical uncertainties from CR-Z-EWK are applied to CR-Z-met-EWK. The last bins contain the overflow.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the GMSB model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-OffShell-EWK and SR-Low-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-Low-2-EWK and SR-Int-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-High-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the C1N2 model in the regions SR-1J-High-EWK and SR-$\ell\ell bb$-EWK. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. For models with mass splittings below the Z boson mass, this filter also requires $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} > 75~\mathrm{GeV}$. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_SLN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the GG_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Signal region acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) over the full \mll\ range for the SS_N2_ZN1 model in Strong search regions. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal-region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Ht$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Cutflow table listing the number of events passing each criterion for a $T$-quark hypothesis with a mass of 1.6 TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$. The initial signal event yield is the predicted number of $T$-quark events inclusive in the Higgs-boson and top-quark decays for 139 fb$^{-1}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Expected 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark production cross-section as a function of the $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ and $m_{T}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL lower limits on the $T$-quark mass as a function of the $T$-quark width-to-mass ratio and the branching fraction of the $T \rightarrow Wb$ decay ($\Gamma_{T}$ is the $T$-quark width).

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x&ndash;y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|&eta;|&lt;1.4) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Trigger efficiency for simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the x&ndash;y plane (L_xy) for LLPs decaying in the barrel (|&eta;|&lt;1.4) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the high-E_T L1 triggers with E_T thresholds of 60 GeV and 100 GeV and by the two versions of the low-E_T L1 triggers. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with no adversary network. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

The NN output scores in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training with an adversary network included. Statistical uncertainties are shown in all plots. In cases where training with adversary networks is considered, the systematic uncertainty related to modelling discrepancies is included as well.

Distribution of the low-E_T per-event BDT in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Distribution of the high-E_T per-event BDT outputs in main data, BIB data and some of the benchmark signal samples after preselection. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the high-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Sequential impact of each requirement on the number of events passing the selection for the low-E_T selections. The signal columns represent the cumulative fraction of events passing the selection than the number of events.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final high-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B&middot; N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

Application of the modified ABCD method to the final low-E_T selections. The a priori estimate refers to the "pre-unblinding" case, where the data in region A are ignored by removing the Poisson constraint in that region and the signal strength is fixed to zero. This matches the simple N^bkg_A=(N^bkg_B&middot; N^bkg_C)/N^bkg_D relation. The a posteriori estimate refers to the "post-unblinding" case, including the observed data in region A in the background-only global fit, obtained by fixing the signal strength to 0 (background-only fit) or allowing it to float (signal-plus-background fit). The table also shows one set of representative signal yields in each selection for the signal-plus-background fit. Only statistical uncertainties are included in the quoted error of the background, while the uncertainties in the signal include those from both statistical and experimental sources.

95% CL expected and observed limits on the BR of SM Higgs bosons to pairs of neutral LLPs (B_{H&rarr; ss}), showing the &plusmn; 1 &sigma; (green) and &plusmn; 2 &sigma; (yellow) expected limit bands, as well as a comparison with the results from previous ATLAS searches [36,78]. The cross-section for SM Higgs boson gluon--gluon fusion production is assumed to be 48.6 pb.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 &le; |&eta;| &lt; 2.5) for one of the low-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

Trigger efficiency of simulated signal events as a function of the LLP decay position in the z direction for LLPs decaying in the calorimeter endcaps (1.4 &le; |&eta;| &lt; 2.5) for one of the high-E_T signal samples for HLT CalRatio triggers seeded by the 60 GeV-high-E_T trigger and by the two versions of the low-E_T triggers.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The simulated efficiencies as a function of c times the mean proper lifetime (c&tau;) of s for several different MC samples. A weight-based extrapolation procedure is used to determine the efficiency at a given mean proper lifetime.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the low-E_T training training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The event BDT in the dijet control region for the high-E_T training. The uncertainties are combined statistical and ML modelling systematic uncertainty.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 60 GeV compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 125 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available. The 125 GeV mediator is assumed to be the SM Higgs boson.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 200 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 400 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; mass of 600 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

The 95% CL observed limits, expected limits and &plusmn; 1 &sigma; and 2 &sigma; bands for the &Phi; masses of of 1000 GeV, compared to the results from the 2016-data analysis and subsequent combinations, where available.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the high-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in decay position in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, &infin;] m for LLPs with |&eta;| &lt; 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, &infin; ] m for LLPs with |&eta;|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or &tau; in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) &times; (number of p_T bins &times; number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the high-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.5%, the results are typically accurate to around 25%, but below this the efficiency can be overestimated and therefore should not be used for re-interpration.

Efficiency for an event to enter Region A of the low-E_T selection, as a function of the two LLP kinematics, decay type and decay position. LLP p_T is binned in the ranges of [0, 50 , 100, 200 , 400, 1600] GeV (5 bins), the LLP decay position is binned in L_xy in [0, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 3.9, &infin;] m for LLPs with |&eta;| &lt; 1.5 and L_z in [0, 3.6, 4.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6, &infin; ] m for LLPs with |&eta;|geq1.5, 13 bins in all. Finally, four decay types are considered: LLPs decaying to pairs of c, b, t, or &tau; in bins 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively. The efficiency is presented as a function of "Bin Index", which is calculated as follows: Bin Index = (decay position bin index ) &times; (number of p_T bins &times; number of decay type bins) + p_T bin index * (number of decay type bin) + decay type bin index. The efficiency for a given pair-produced LLP sample can be obtained by summing the efficiency values for each event as extracted from this map, and dividing it by the total number of events in the sample. The efficiency map is symmetric between the LLPs, so the choice of LLP1 and LLP2 is arbitrary. For the low-E_T selections, for overall efficiencies above 0.15%, the results are typically accurate to around 33%, and below this the efficiency is typically accurate up to a factor of 3.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Total cross-section at particle level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Total cross-section at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Total cross-section at parton level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.

$p_{T}^{t,1}$ 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.

Covariance matrix between the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.55 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.625 TeV and the $p_{T}^{t,1}\otimes m^{t\bar{t}}$ normalized differential cross-section at particle level for 0.625 TeV < $p_{T}^{t,1}$ < 0.75 TeV.

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

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

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton 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 parton level for 0.2 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 0.5 and the $|{y}^{t,1}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t,1}|$ < 2.

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

Covariance matrix between the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes p_{T}^{t,1}$ absolute differential cross-section at parton 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 parton 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 parton level for 0 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.2 and the $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|\otimes |{y}^{t,1}|$ absolute differential cross-section at parton level for 1 < $|{y}^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.

Correlation Asymmetry data from the upgraded detector.

Combined correlation data.

Combined correlation asymmetry data.