Target asymmetry T, recoil asymmetry P, and polarization observable H for $\gamma n \to \eta n$ as a function of the polar center-of-mass angle for bins at the given centroid c.m. energies.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.

The unfolded inclusive leptonic asymmetry. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

The unfolded differential leptonic asymmetry as a function of the longitudinal boost of the di-lepton pair. The unfolded $A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ is obtained in the reduced phase-space defined by the requirement $|\Delta |\eta_{\ell\bar{\ell}}||<2.5$. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed. The theory uncertainty is obtained by varying both scales by a factor of 0.5 or 2.0 to calculate the minimum and maximum value of the asymmetry, respectively.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Individual 68% and 95% CL bounds on the relevant Wilson coefficients of the SM Effective Field Theory in units of $\text{TeV}^{-2}$. The bounds are derived from the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. The experimental uncertainties are accounted for, in the form of the complete covariance matrix that keeps track of correlations between bins for the differential measurement. The theory uncertainty from the NNLO QCD + NLO EW calculation is included by explicitly varying the renormalization and factorization scales, or the parton density functions, in the calculation and registering the variations in the intervals.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ < 500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [500,750] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [750,1000] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [1000,1500] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $m_{t\bar{t}}$ > 1500 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ < 30 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ $\in$ [30,120] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement for $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > 120 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0,0.3]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.3,0.6]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.6,0.8]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$[0.8,1]. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 200 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [200,300] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [300,400] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 400 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < 20 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ $\in$ [20, 70] GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Ranking of the systematic uncertainties with marginalisation for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement for $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > 70 GeV. The effect on unfolded $A_C$ for down and up variation of the systematic uncertainty is shown, respectively. The pulls and constraints of the ranked NPs are obtained from data.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ inclusive measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Post-marginalisation correlation coefficients $\rho_{ij}$ of nuisance parameters for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement. Only $|\rho_{ij}| > 0.05$ values are included.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Covariance matrix for the $A_C^{\ell\ell}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ measurement.

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3147 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3289 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3430 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3569 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3707 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3843 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.3978 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.4112 GeV

Photon beam asymmetry Sigma at W= 1.4244 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= 0.819

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= 0.707

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= 0.574

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= 0.423

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= 0.259

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= 0.087

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.087

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.259

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.423

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.574

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.707

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.819

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.906

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.966

Target asymmetry T for c.m. cos(Theta_pi0)= -0.996

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5584 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5882 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6175 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6462 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6745 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7022 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7431 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7961 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8476 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.4969 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5156 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5341 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5584 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5882 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6175 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6462 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6745 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7022 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7431 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7961 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8476 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.3693 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.3897 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.4098 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.4296 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.4492 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.4685 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.4875 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5063 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5249 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5432 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5614 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5793 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.5970 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6146 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6319 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6491 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6660 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6828 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.6995 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7160 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7323 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7485 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7645 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7804 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.7961 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8117 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8272 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8425 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8577 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8728 GeV

Target asymmetry T for c.m. energy W= 1.8878 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.3062 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.3275 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.3486 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.3693 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.3897 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.4098 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.4296 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.4492 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.4685 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.4875 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5063 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5249 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5432 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5614 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5793 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.5970 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6146 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6319 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6491 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6660 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6828 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.6995 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7160 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7323 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7485 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7645 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7804 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.7961 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8117 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8272 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8425 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8577 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8728 GeV

Beam-target asymmetry F for c.m. energy W= 1.8878 GeV

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons as a function of XB. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons as a function of Z. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons as a function of PT(HADRON). The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons as a function of XB. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons as a function of Z. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons as a function of PT(HADRON). The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the first XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the second XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the third XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the last XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the first XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the second XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the third XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

ASYMUU(COS(2*PHI(HADRON))) 3d asymmetries for positive and negative hadrons in the last XB bin. The errors are statistical and systematic.

The particle-level di-jet differential cross section. The systematic uncertainty on the data contains contributions from track finding efficiency, track transverse momentum resolution, calorimeter energy resolution, and unfolding uncertainties. For the theory, values are given for the underlying event and hadronization (UEH) correction uncertainty and the quadrature sum of the UEH and theoretical uncertainties. Both the UEH and theoretical uncertainties include contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties. An 8.8% uncertainty common to all points due to the integrated luminosity determination is also present, but not included in the systematic values quoted below.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the same-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the opposite-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the same-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the same-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the opposite-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the opposite-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.