The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.

Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.

Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.

Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).

Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.

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

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

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV at particle level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

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

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

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

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

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

Covariance matrix between the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV and the Relative double-differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV at parton level in the resolved topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Statistical correlation matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\chi_{tt}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.

Covariance matrix of the Relative differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.