Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with the BDT requirements selecting the most signal-like events. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.5$.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Expected upper limit at 95% CL on the coupling strength $\lambda$ of a scalar LQ to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet btag category with the lowest BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with low BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\tau_\mathrm{h}$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the e+jet btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Observed and expected distributions of the collinear mass in the $\mu$+jet no-btag category with intermediate BDT requirement. The signal hypothesis corresponds to a scalar leptoquark coupled to u quarks and $\tau$ leptons with a coupling strength $\lambda$ equal to 1.5.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to b quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 3.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 0.5$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on the scalar lepton-induced LQ production cross section times branching fraction for a LQ coupled to light-flavor quarks and $\tau$ leptons, using $\lambda = 2.0$.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the e+jet btag control region.

Observed and expected distributions of the jet multiplicity in the $\mu$+jet btag control region.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Background and data yields in the control and signal region bins. The prediction before ("prefit") and after the background only fit ("b-only") are given separately.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Matrix of covariance coefficients between signal region bins. The coefficients are obtained from the background-only fit to the control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Background prediction and observed data yields in the signal region bins. The background yields are obtained from the background-only fit to the corresponding control regions, and serve as input to the simplified likelihood reinterpretation scheme.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Unweighted signal acceptance times efficiency at every cut stage. The requirements called "HCAL mitigation" refer to the requirements imposed in the 2018 data set in order to mitigate the localized failure of the HCAL detector.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with axial couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the simplified model with vector couplings.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a axial mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{\chi}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Upper limits on the coupling $g_{q}$ in the simplified model with a vector mediator.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with scalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the signal strength in the simplified model with pseudoscalar couplings.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Exclusion limits on the fundamental Planck scale $M_{D}$ as a function of the number of extra dimensions $d$.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Median Expected exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Observed exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected plus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Expected minus 1 s.d. exclusion contour in the $m_{med}$-$m_{\chi}$ plane in the fermion portal model.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

Tagging efficiency for AK8 jets. The efficiency includes the effect of the machine-learning based DeepAK8 tagger, as well as the application of the mass window requirement on the jet. The efficiency is split depending on the matching generator-level object. For reinterpretation purposes, this efficiency can directly be applied to any AK8 jet that is matched to a given type of generator-level object, with no prior selection on the jet mass. Other acceptance requirements on jet $\p_{T}$ and $\eta$ should still be applied.

TAU and Z polarization values was obtained as a result of fit of the POL(cos(theta)) distribution to the formula Ptau(COS(THETA)) = (Ptau*(1+cos**2(theta))+Pz*2*cos(theta))/ ((1+cos**2(theta))+Ptau*Pz*2*cos(theta)). Results are corrected for QED effects and for the center-of-mass energies different to M(Z) with the program ZFITTER.. The first error is statistical, the second is due to the simulated data statistics and the third due to all other systematic uncertainties.

The same as in previous table but the fit was made assuming lepton universality: Ptau = Pz. The first error is statistical, the second is due to the simulated data statistics and the third due to all other systematic uncertainties.

Combination of current result with the TAU polarization value obtained from the analysis on 1990 data ( ZP C55, 555), assuming fully correlated systematic errors.

Combination of current result with the TAU polarization value obtained from the analysis on 1990 data ( ZP C55, 555), assuming fully correlated systematic errors and lepton universality.

No description provided.

Ratio of vector and axial-vector constants for electrons.

The values of weak mixing angle and ratio was obtained assuming lepton universality.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.8 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.5 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.5 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.9 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.7 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.7 pct.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.4 pct.. Efficiency corrected cross section for both leptons inside the angular range 44 to 136 degrees with an acollinearity cut of < 25 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.3 pct.. Efficiency corrected cross section for both leptons inside the angular range 44 to 136 degrees with an acollinearity cut of < 25 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.3 pct.. Efficiency corrected cross section for both leptons inside the angular range 44 to 136 degrees with an acollinearity cut of < 25 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.5 pct.. s-channel contribution to the cross section extrapolated to the full solid angle (no acollinearity cut).

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.4 pct.. s-channel contribution to the cross section extrapolated to the full solid angle (no acollinearity cut).

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.4 pct.. s-channel contribution to the cross section extrapolated to the full solid angle (no acollinearity cut).

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.002.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.002.. Acollinearity required to be <15 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.003.. Acollinearity required to be <14.3 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.004.. Both leptons inside the angle range 44 to 136 degrees with acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.004.. Both leptons inside the angle range 44 to 136 degrees with acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.002.. Both leptons inside the angle range 44 to 136 degrees with acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1990 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. s-channel contribution extrapolated to full solid angle.. Acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1991 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.005.. s-channel contribution extrapolated to full solid angle.. Acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Results from 1992 data. Additional systematic uncertainty of 0.003.. s-channel contribution extrapolated to full solid angle.. Acollinearity cut of <25 degrees.

Determination of the effective vector and axial-vector coupling constants of the neutral current to charged leptons, the effective electroweak mixing angle, and the strong coupling constant.

E+ E- cross sections from the 1991 data set for both final state fermions in the polar angle range 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees (the s + t data). Additional systematic error, excluding luminosity, is 0.37 pct.

E+ E- cross sections from the 1990 data set after t-channel subtraction with only the E- constraint by polar angle 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees. Additional systematic error, excluding luminosity, is 1.0 pct at the peak.

E+ E- cross sections from the 1991 data set after t-channel subtraction with only the E- constraint by polar angle 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees. Additional systematic error, excluding luminosity, is 0.5 pct at the peak.

E+ E- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1990 data set for both final state fermions in the polar angle range 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees (the s + t data).

E+ E- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1991 data set for both final state fermions in the polar angle range 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees (the s + t data). Additional systematic error, excluding luminosity, is 0.002.

E+ E- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1990 data set after t-channel subtraction with only the E- constraint by polar angle 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees. Additional systematic error, excluding luminosity, is 0.003 at the peak.

E+ E- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1991 data set after t-channel subtraction with only the E- constraint by polar angle 44 to 136 degrees and accollinearity < 10 degrees. Additional systematic error, excluding luminosity, is 0.003 at the peak.

MU+ MU- cross sections from the 1990 data set, for 4pi detection (corrected for the cuts on momenta and accollinearity). Additional systematic uncertainty, excluding luminosity, is 0.8 pct.

MU+ MU- cross sections from the 1991 data set for events having both muons above 15 GeV and the polar angle of the mu- 20 to 160 degrees and the accollinearity angle <10 degrees. Additional systematic uncertainty, excluding luminosity, is 0.5 pct.

MU+ MU- cross sections from the 1991 data set corrected to 4pi acceptance.

MU+ MU- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1990 data set, derived by counting the number of muons in the forward-backward hemispheres, corrected to full solid angle but not for cuts on momenta and accollinearity. Additional systematic error 0.005.

MU+ MU- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1991 data set, derived by counting the number of muons in the forward-backward hemispheres, corrected to full solid angle but not for cuts on momenta and accollinearity. Additional systematic error 0.003.

MU+ MU- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1990 data set, derived from a maximum likelihood fit to the angular distributions, corrected to full solid angle but not for cuts on momenta and accollinearity. Additional systematic error 0.005.

MU+ MU- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1991 data set, derived from a maximum likelihood fit to the angular distributions, corrected to full solid angle but not for cuts on momenta and accollinearity. Additional systematic error 0.003.

TAU+ TAU- cross sections from the 1990 data set corrected for full solid angle. Additional systematic uncertainty is 1.2 pct.

TAU+ TAU- cross sections from the 1991 data set corrected for full solid angle. Additional systematic uncertainty is 0.75 pct.

TAU+ TAU- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1990 data set, corrected to full solid angle. Additional systematic error is 0.005 at the peak.

TAU+ TAU- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1991 data set, corrected to full solid angle. Additional systematic error is 0.003 at the peak.

LEPTON+ LEPTON- cross sections from the 1990 data set. Data are corrected for t-channel subtraction, and to full solid angle but not for momenta and accollinearity cuts. Additional systematic uncertainty, excluding luminosity, is 0.6 pct.

LEPTON+ LEPTON- cross sections from the 1991 data set. Data are corrected for t-channel subtraction, and to full solid angle but not for momenta and accollinearity cuts. Additional systematic uncertainty, excluding luminosity, is 0.4 pct.

LEPTON+ LEPTON- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1990 data set. Data are corrected for t-channel subtraction, and to full solid angle but not for momenta and accollinearity cuts. Additional systematic uncertainty, excluding luminosity, is 0.005.

LEPTON+ LEPTON- forward-backward asymmetries from the 1991 data set. Data are corrected for t-channel subtraction, and to full solid angle but not for momenta and accollinearity cuts. Additional systematic uncertainty, excluding luminosity, is 0.0025.

The systematic error shown for SIN2TW is due to the uncertainty in the Higgs mass.