Expected 95% CL lower limit on the VLQ $T$ mass as a function of the decay branching ratios into $W b$ and $Ht$.

Observed 95% CL lower limit on the VLQ $T$ mass as a function of the decay branching ratios into $W b$ and $Ht$.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (-1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (+1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour (-1$\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.1 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($+1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($-1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ =1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($+1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour ($-1\sigma$) for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The expected 95% CL exclusion contour for a simplified model of dark-matter production involving for a vector operator with couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.1, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0.01 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$ and the mediator mass $m_{\mathrm{med}}$. The plane under the limit curve is excluded.

The 90% CL exclusion limit on the $\chi$-proton scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark-matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The 90% CL exclusion limit on the $\chi$-nucleon scattering cross section in a simplifed model of dark-matter production involving a vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25, $g_{\chi}$ = 1 and $g_{l}$ = 0 as a function of the dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The observed and expected 95% CL limits on M* for a dimension-7 operator EFT model with a contact interaction of type $\gamma\gamma\chi\chi$ as a function of dark-matter mass $m_{\chi}$.

The observed and expected limit at 95% CL on the production cross section of a $Z\gamma$ resonance as a function of its mass.

The observed 95% CL upper limits on signal strength $\mu$, the ratio of the experimental limit to the predicted signal cross section, for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$ = 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 as a function of the DM and the mediator particle masses. The bound on $\mu$ only applies for choices of couplings that yield the same kinematic distributions as the benchmark model.

Acceptance, in %, for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$= 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 for various $m_{\chi}$ and $m_{\textrm{med}}$ values. It is constant as a function of $m_{\chi}$ for a fixed $m_{\textrm{med}}$ in the region $m_{\textrm{med}}>2m_{\chi}$.

Fiducial reconstruction efficiencies in the three inclusive signal regions for a simplified model of dark matter production involving an axial-vector operator, Dirac DM and couplings $g_{q}$= 0.25 and $g_{\chi}$ = 1 for various $m_{\chi}$ and $m_{\textrm{med}}$ values. It is constant as a function of $m_{\chi}$ for a fixed $m_{\textrm{med}}$ in the region $m_{\textrm{med}}>2m_{\chi}$.

The number of events as a function of the dijet invariant mass, compared to background prediction from fit and corresponding uncertainties, in the region defined by |y*|<1.2 optimized for the W* search.

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.4-3.7] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [3.7-4.0] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.0-4.3] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.3-4.6] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.6-4.9] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.9-5.4] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in [4.9-5.4] TeV dijet invariant mass region

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in dijet invariant mass region above 5.4 TeV

The number of events normalized to bin width as a function of the chi angular separation between the two jets, compared to background prediction from Monte Carlo simulation and corresponding uncertainties, in dijet invariant mass region above 5.4 TeV

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.

Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent for the measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the Z/gamma* -> mu+mu- final state at 13TeV.

Measured fiducial cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the combined Z/gamma* -> l+l- (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross section times leptonic branching ratio for Z/gamma* production in the combined Z/gamma* -> l+ l- (l = e, mu) final state.

Measured total cross-section for ttbar events using e-mu events with b-tagged jets.

Correlation coefficients amongst the combined (Z/gamma^* -> l+ l-) where (l = e, mu) fiducial cross section and ttbar total cross section at 13, 8, and 7TeV.

Correlation coefficients amongst the combined (Z/gamma^* -> l+ l-) where (l = e, mu) fiducial cross section and ttbar total cross section at 13, 8, and 7TeV, omitting the common normalisation uncertainty due to the luminosity calibration and beam energy.

Z-boson and ttbar production cross-section single ratios at 13, 8, 7TeV. The beam-energy uncertainty, which largely cancels in the ratios, is included in the systematic uncertainty. In the first column, the total (TOT) cross sections are used for both numerator and denominator. In the second column, the total cross section is used for the numerator while the fiducial (FID) cross section is used for the denominator. In the third column, the fiducial cross sections are used for both numerator and denominator. Apart for the MZ requirement, the kinematic fiducial requirements listed below apply only to the fiducial cross sections. The luminosity uncertainty almost entirely cancels in some of the ratio measurements.

Z-boson and ttbar production cross-section double ratios at 13, 8, 7TeV. The beam-energy uncertainty, which largely cancels in the ratios, is included in the systematic uncertainty. In the first column, the total (TOT) cross sections are used for both ttbar and Z processes. In the second column, the total cross section is used for ttbar while the fiducial (FID) cross section is used for Z. In the third column, the fiducial cross sections are used for both ttbar and Z. Apart for the MZ requirement, the kinematic fiducial requirements listed below apply only to the fiducial cross sections.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.

Multiplicity of additional jets with pt>80GeV

Transverse momentum of leading b-jet

Transverse momentum of sub-leading b-jet

Transverse momentum of leading (highest pt) additional jet

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<0.8 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within 0.8<|y|<1.5 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within 1.5<|y|<2.1 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region m_{emubb} < 300GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region 300 GeV < m_{emubb} < 425GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region 425 GeV< m_{emubb} < 600GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of Q0 for invariant mass region m_{emubb} > 600GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<0.8 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within 0.8<|y|<1.5 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within 1.5<|y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region m_{emubb} < 300GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region 300 GeV < m_{emubb} < 425 GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region 425GeV< m_{emubb} < 600GeV

Measured Gap fraction within |y|<2.1 as a function of QSUM for invariant mass region m_{emubb} > 600GeV

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $N_{ch}(p_T < 0.4 GeV)$ (EvSel_$N_{ch}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $N_{ch}(p_T < 0.4 GeV)$ (EvSel_$N_{ch}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $N_{ch}(p_T < 0.4 GeV)$ (EvSel_$N_{ch}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $N_{ch}(p_T < 0.4 GeV)$ (EvSel_$N_{ch}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$=2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_2\{2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}/v_2\{4\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}/v_2\{6\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}/v_2\{4\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}/v_2\{6\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}/v_2\{4\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}/v_2\{6\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_2\{4\}/v_2\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{6\}/v_2\{4\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_2\{8\}/v_2\{6\}$ ratio for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$c_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ cumulants for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$v_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_3\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.3 $< p_T <$ 3.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$= 13 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2\}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for pPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 5.02 TeV.

$v_4\{2, | \Delta \eta > 2 \}$ harmonics for reference particles with 0.5 $< p_T <$ 5.0 GeV selected according to $M_{ref}$ (EvSel_$M_{ref}$) for PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{ s_{NN} }$= 2.76 TeV.

$ v_2\{4\} $ harmonics for reference particles with 0.2 $ < p_{T} < $ 3.0 GeV as a function of $ < N_{ch}(|\eta|<1) > $ for p+Pb collisions at $ \sqrt{ s_{NN} } $= 5.02 TeV.

$ v_2\{4\} $ harmonics for reference particles with 0.2 $ < p_{T}< $ 3.0 GeV as a function of $ < N_{ch}(|\eta|<1) > $ for Pb+Pb collisions at $ \sqrt{ s_{NN} } $= 2.76 TeV.

Measured cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $|\eta^{\gamma}|<0.6$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $0.6<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.37$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.56<|\eta^{\gamma}|<1.81$.

Predicted cross sections for inclusive isolated-photon production as a function of $E_{\rm T}^{\gamma}$ for $1.81<|\eta^{\gamma}|<2.37$.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass under the assumption of BR(B->Wt)=1.

Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the BB cross section as a function of B quark mass for an SU(2) singlet B.

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the T quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).

Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the mass of the B quark in the branching ratio plane of BR(T->Wb) versus BR(T->Ht).